It is currently Thu Nov 14, 2024 5:01 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
Pretty fun list to read. I don't agree with all of these, some of them I kinda liked...but this is the kind of riffing I like to read.

I don't want to give a lot away but just to give you a taste: a certain Batman sequel, a horrible excuse for a "war movie", and everybody's favorite Dr. Seuss story are among those that take a beating.

http://www.moviefone.com/insidemovies/2009/08/17/worst-blockbusters/?icid=main|main|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviefone.com%2Finsidemovies%2F2009%2F08%2F17%2Fworst-blockbusters%2F


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
Posts: 17678
Location: The Leviathan
pizza_Place: Frozen
Well, that list was alright but it really shit the bed on number one...seriously, it's Rotten Tomatoes Rating (63%) is so far beyond the others in the top 5 it's not even funny...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:53 pm
Posts: 7823
Location: Gai Paree
pizza_Place: Pisa Pizza, Countryside
I don't know how you could have the Da Vinci Code on there but not Angels and Demons

Edit: and is Wild Hogs really considered a blockbuster? wow, Hollywood blows dick right now...

_________________
team Mully & Hanley
team Meatpants


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 13406
Location: The Crownville Lab
pizza_Place: Langel's
I liked/enjoyed 2 of those movies.

_________________
-"God is great. Beer is good. And People are crazy!"
bigfan wrote:
I am in the urination, puking, drunk, yelling zone.

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
I once jerked in a chicken truck, so I have that going for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19482
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
Eaglo Jeff wrote:
I liked/enjoyed 2 of those movies.


I liked more than 2, heck I didn't think Daredevil was that bad.
The reason Phantom menace is as bad as it is has to have you look at what came before. That's why it sucks so bad (even though it has my fav lightsaber duel in it)

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:23 pm
Posts: 16779
pizza_Place: Little Caesar's
A lot of superhero movies on the list and only one of the Batman sequals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19482
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
Colonel Angus wrote:
A lot of superhero movies on the list and only one of the Batman sequals.

where the frack is Electra, I know it made more than Wild Hogs.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 13406
Location: The Crownville Lab
pizza_Place: Langel's
chaspoppcap wrote:
Eaglo Jeff wrote:
I liked/enjoyed 2 of those movies.


I liked more than 2, heck I didn't think Daredevil was that bad.
The reason Phantom menace is as bad as it is has to have you look at what came before. That's why it sucks so bad (even though it has my fav lightsaber duel in it)

The two you just mentioned are the ones I liked. I'm one of few that thought Phantom Menace wasn't as bad as everyone says. Granted I have a bias cuz I'm a SW geek, but I enjoyed it despite it's flaws. I'd also say that I enjoyed, yet at the same time was irritated by Spiderman 3. :spiderman:

_________________
-"God is great. Beer is good. And People are crazy!"
bigfan wrote:
I am in the urination, puking, drunk, yelling zone.

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
I once jerked in a chicken truck, so I have that going for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:55 pm
Posts: 26000
Location: Lurking Below the Surface...
pizza_Place: Dino's Pizza
One of the biggest blockbusters of this summer, "Transformers 2", may have earned a lot of money, but the critics absolutely ripped the sequel to shreds!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
crosscheck wrote:
I don't know how you could have the Da Vinci Code on there but not Angels and Demons

Edit: and is Wild Hogs really considered a blockbuster? wow, Hollywood blows dick right now...


they show the amount of money made; i think a few give you the budgets as well. i believe "angels and demons" was actually a bit of a dud, while "da vinci" made pretty good money.

it's not just worst movies, it's worst movies that made money.

i thought maybe "superman iv" would be on there, but maybe it didn't make money; or "superman returns" for that matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:55 pm
Posts: 26000
Location: Lurking Below the Surface...
pizza_Place: Dino's Pizza
I thought "Angels & Demons" was classified as a prequel to "The DaVinci Code"...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
SHARK wrote:
I thought "Angels & Demons" was classified as a prequel to "The DaVinci Code"...


it is; just as "phantom menace" is a prequel to the star wars trilogy. wasn't just sequels, shark. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:53 pm
Posts: 7823
Location: Gai Paree
pizza_Place: Pisa Pizza, Countryside
W_Z wrote:
crosscheck wrote:
I don't know how you could have the Da Vinci Code on there but not Angels and Demons

Edit: and is Wild Hogs really considered a blockbuster? wow, Hollywood blows dick right now...


they show the amount of money made; i think a few give you the budgets as well. i believe "angels and demons" was actually a bit of a dud, while "da vinci" made pretty good money.

it's not just worst movies, it's worst movies that made money.

i thought maybe "superman iv" would be on there, but maybe it didn't make money; or "superman returns" for that matter.

oh, I see... then the question becomes what could possibly draw that many people out to see Wild Hogs

_________________
team Mully & Hanley
team Meatpants


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:53 pm
Posts: 217
Where's Hudson Hawk? Where's Last Action Hero? That list has EPIC FAIL written all over it.

And what about this high priced summer bomb


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:23 pm
Posts: 16779
pizza_Place: Little Caesar's
Jim DeRevolting wrote:
Where's Hudson Hawk? Where's Last Action Hero? That list has EPIC FAIL written all over it.

And what about this high priced summer bomb

I think this list is about movies that made a lot of money and sucked. I think those were both bombs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
hence the term blockbuster used in the title...the worst bombs, well hell...you could probably list 100 in like...10 minutes or less.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:42 pm
Posts: 7292
Location: Land of Lincoln
pizza_Place: Tombstone
waterworld. it HAS to be on this list somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
heh...again. this is about blockbusters, not box office bombs. waterworld cost $157 million dollars; domestically it made $88 million.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:32 pm
Posts: 11750
pizza_Place: ***
Why does "ever" only go back to 1996?

_________________
Fire Phil Emery


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33774
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Titanic should be on there. Armageddon should not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
Irish Boy wrote:
Why does "ever" only go back to 1996?


because it's moviefone and they are probably too young...

Spaulding wrote:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Titanic should be on there.


so which two do you want to take off for those? sorry, "armageddon" *does* belong there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57196
W_Z wrote:
moviefone


Why don't you just tell me what movie you want to see!

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:32 pm
Posts: 11750
pizza_Place: ***
W_Z wrote:
Irish Boy wrote:
Why does "ever" only go back to 1996?


because it's moviefone and they are probably too young...

Spaulding wrote:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Titanic should be on there.


so which two do you want to take off for those? sorry, "armageddon" *does* belong there.


I'm going to defend Armageddon a bit too. It wasn't that bad.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
Irish Boy wrote:
I'm going to defend Armageddon a bit too. It wasn't that bad.


would you take that off in favor of "kingdom of the crystal skull"? and in that case, how would you defend CS over that movie?

i guess i'm being a pain in the ass over nothing but...i dunno...i'm bored. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33774
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
One of the comic book type movies or the mummy.

The star wars movie is too heavily weighted because of what it was suppose to live up to.

Armageddon was a cheesy, mindless, summer actiony romanticy movie. It was funny, a couple quotable lines, some good actors, and a totally absurd storyline. It is good bad, like Road House and the Running Man.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
i don't accept any defense of the star wars prequels. george lucas had almost 20 years to construct just a basic plot line that was believable and couldn't even do that.

as far as "armageddon" being what it was...i actually didn't hate it, but i think for being a bad movie, it certainly belongs on the list.

"titanic" is at its worst, an overtly romanticized drama that probably could've done with some trimming. but the overall story is good, and the sets are amazing. "titanic" will always be a romanticized story; look at "a night to remember" as an example of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33774
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
That's why I'm suprised you like titanic. It's an extremely superficial movie, the beauty is almost all in the set. The heroine is a self absorbed gold digger. The weathy are mostly portrayed as snobby or selfish. The people of limited means are all good. Then she cheats on her fiance and almost everybody in the movie is dishonest. She flicked somebody off but a young girl in her class would not have known the gesture or what it meant.

There were so many stories of faith and courage on that ship. This movie could have been way better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
the ship itself is emblematic of the people that were aboard it. it was a tale of the rich and their overindulgences. in between was a love story that might've been starry eyed and hollywoodized, but the character of jack was at least honest, and he brought out the best in rose. the script was a bit lacking in character depth, but i still thought the overall product was good. plus there were some minor characters that were well done, and it was very accurate in its depiction of the sinking.

"armageddon" was extremely weak in just about every aspect, including character depth and the storyline was laughably bad. i have a feeling "independence day" would've made the list had it not been for this film.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33774
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
It was a tale of the rich and their overindulgences. - Why is that always a bad thing?

Jack was not honest, he persued another guy's fiancee and snuck around on the ship. There was no character depth. There was really no love story as far as I could tell he just wanted in her pants. The spit scene was terrible. You have to be a pre teen or teenage girl to like this movie.

And it was long as hell. The actual ship sunk in less time than this stupid movie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37801
Location: ...
on the basis that she didn't love him...i mean i think that's pretty common in a lot of romantic dramas/comedies. there has to be a storyline there that just because the "bonds of legality" are there doesn't mean there's actual love...she didn't love the guy, she loved jack.

Quote:
It was a tale of the rich and their overindulgences. - Why is that always a bad thing?


because it always ends the same way. you ever read "the great gatsby"? overextending power and such...it leads to bad things, always. in the context of romantic stories, there is always a price to pay for luxury and wealth. in this case, the titanic represented wealth as a facade. and it was, in itself, a facade. the ship was not unsinkable, just as the people on it were not infallible, though they thought they were.

there were a couple of scenes that showed a "relationship" between jack and rose, at least. yeah in the end it always becomes about sex but there was something there at the heart of it.

ultimately, cameron should've stuck to sci-fi shoot-em-up action films..."titanic" had a fantastic set design and some great moments, but as a narrative it was lacking in some respects. however, it still trumped "armageddon" immensely. not saying much though...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group