Avoid These Movies At All Costs!

Ok, this thread raises the question:

If a movie is expected to be bad, but it exceeds those expectations, does that make it good?

In the pro corner... I thought Sky Captain would be utterly dire, but it wasn't. Hence, I was pleasantly surprised (even though it was still bad).

In the con corner... Army of Darkness was pretty good if you weren't expecting a horror. But it was actually not very good at all.

So - which is more accurate? Does low expectations = better movie, or is class a non-arbitrary thing?

Answers on a postcard...

EDIT - in fact (while I'm in rant mode), is there anyone else that thinks the whole "it's so bad it's funny" argument, when applied to most films (specifically crappy, dubbed martial ats films), just doesn't wash? I mean, in my opinion, if it's bad, it's bad.
 
Green said:
Army of Darkness was pretty good if you weren't expecting a horror.
...AoD is one of those movies that is probably better while under the influence—it had its moments. Seems like they were shooting for camp horror.
 
Depends if it was suppost to be...
It's like watching a porn film, the acting, diagolue and direction isn't exactly gunna be oscar worthy, but people still buy them ;)
^^btw Arguement isn't exactly solid, but its just and example. There are so many people out there who do go to see a film, for the cheesiness, there favorite actor/ress, the gun battle, explosion etc.

It's kinda strange the way this works thou. A film comes out, lets say pearl harbour. Guns, explosons, death and carnage, the people who know they wouldn't like it don't see it, whilst the people who do, go and see the film and say its 'Ace'. The none watchers catach wind of so many good reviews from friends and with so few bad reviews, there pritty much suckered into watching the film.
So the net result is they had higher expectations (from all the good reviews) +they where suckered into seeing it, so they hate the film more....
Leaving people like us, to list them in forums like these.
XD
I wanna add 'ET'
 
well, the thing about Army of Darkness is I laughed my back end off at the Evil Dead movies and laughed even harder at AoD. I wouldnt recommend them to anyone, but I enjoyed them.
I surprised at the Lost in Translation response. Bill Murray must be an acquired taste. I love him and enjoyed the movie. Was it all the hype said it was? No. But I enjoyed it all the same.
English Patient however...........there was 10 & 1/2 hours of my life I want back. But others say its the best movie of all time. So go figure.
In so far as sci-fi movies go, people on the board seem to love X3. I tried to watch it twice and fell asleep both times. My wife actually got up and walked out of the room she couldnt take it anymore. So its all in perspective. The thing to consider is a movie a tanker even judged by its genre?
and yeah, the Butterfly Effect was lousy.
 
dreamwalker said:
I wanna add 'ET'

ET?
E.T. the extraterrestrial by Steven Spielberg?
Must be avoided at all costs?
Maybe its a generational thing, cause youre gonna have several hundered million people argue that statement. :)
(well, at the very least 10's of millions! ;) )
 
Trey Greyjoy said:
...yea, depends on who is renting it. Do they want to walk away with a warm, fuzzy feeling? ...if so, they should throw their hard earned money at E.T. But those who rent Aliens are in it for a different reason.
 
well, the thing about Army of Darkness is I laughed my back end off at the Evil Dead movies and laughed even harder at AoD. I wouldnt recommend them to anyone, but I enjoyed them.
It's one of those movies I would not admit to watching all the way through it was so bad... with it's stupid one liners "give me some sugar baby" and 'that's just pillow talk'... come on... *rolls eyes*
But in my house I am the only one who dislikes the show... I'm out numbered... not only do we own it (which I have tried many times to get rid of, unsuccessfully) but it's watched everytime it comes on the TV... :(


And Kyektulu... I really didn't like the Butterfly Effect at all either.
 
Trey Greyjoy said:
ET?
E.T. the extraterrestrial by Steven Spielberg?
Must be avoided at all costs?
Maybe its a generational thing, cause youre gonna have several hundered million people argue that statement. :)
(well, at the very least 10's of millions! ;) )
Go through my arguement again, and you'll see the irony in your statement...
 
Green said:
in fact (while I'm in rant mode), is there anyone else that thinks the whole "it's so bad it's funny" argument, when applied to most films (specifically crappy, dubbed martial ats films), just doesn't wash? I mean, in my opinion, if it's bad, it's bad.

The way I see it, the "so bad it's funny" argument works when the movie is so stereotypical that it manages to parody itself and its genre--intentionally or unintentionally. For example, Army of Darkness was fun partly because it included so many horror/fantasy movie cliches (the heroic quest, a magic book, an army of the dead and demonic possession) in such a way that you could no longer take them seriously. Afterwards, a true camp gem can affect your perception of other movies; to this date, any movie with the resurrected dead makes me flash to the dancing skeletons, and I have to say "This is my boomstick!" when primitive natives in a movie see guns.

That's where I see the distinction. A bad movie makes you groan while you watch it; but a "so bad it's good" movie makes you groan, or laugh maniacally, even when you see the same ideas in good movies.
 
Chronicles of the Ridiculous Amount of Times One Can Take On/Off Goggles

I would have to add The Chronicles of Riddick. I mean, how many times did we need to see the title character pose before taking on or off his goggles? The fact that it was a sequel to a little science fiction film I had defended to others for so many years certainly didn't help. Riddick is not even remotely as good as Pitch Black; regardless of whether or not the subgenre of the film is different than the original.

I feel the problem is that the (supposed) trilogy started off as a different type of film to be categorized with, for example, Alien. Now, I don't believe that Pitch Black deserves to be on the same level of greatness as Alien, but it pitted a small group against some archetypal alien fears of humans, nevertheless. Chronicles of Riddick tried to, on the surface, morph itself into an expansive science fiction tale much like Dune. I have a feeling that, just below the surface, the project was more about stroking someone's ego. Hint: check out who was the executive producer.
 
Trey Greyjoy said:
In so far as sci-fi movies go, people on the board seem to love X3. I tried to watch it twice and fell asleep both times. My wife actually got up and walked out of the room she couldnt take it anymore.

X3?
Which movie is that?
 
Supposed it's X2 (X-men 2). As X3 hasn't started yet *mumbles* can't they hurry up ? *mumbles*
 
I went to see Fear at the cinema years ago with a group of friends and to date it's the only movie I've walked out on. Thank god I was a smoker at the time as it gave me an excuse to get some respite.

The first Star Trek movie is pretty bad as well. Very, very slow moving, fair enough they finally had the money to do some special effects but who decided 10 minutes of panning across the ship in dock was a good idea. :confused:
 
Winters_Sorrow said:
I'm dreading it now to be honest.
Vinnie Jones as the Juggernaut?
Words fail me.....polite words anyway. ;)
As long as Chuck Austen don't write the script... Is it confirmed Stacy-X will be one of the characters ?
 
Alien VS Preditor A total waste of time.

Lost In Translation I must admit it bored me to tears.

Yu-Gi-Oh I was dragged to this by my Sister. Her son begged her to see it and she didn't want to be the only one to suffer. She's lucky I like her. It was like a poker game on acid.
 
Alysheba said:
Yu-Gi-Oh I was dragged to this by my Sister. Her son begged her to see it and she didn't want to be the only one to suffer. She's lucky I like her. It was like a poker game on acid.

:D
 

Similar threads


Back
Top