Everything is a flop, even Harry Potter:

Aren't all five of them Michael Caine?

bhcompy: 73% RT, 63% Cream of the Crop(which puts it about the same as Metacritic, whose methodology I prefer). And it's not "profit". Theaters get their cut, too. Yes, DVD sales are nice, but if that mattered so much Boondock Saints would be revered.

And that top 250 has How To Train Your Dragon, Star Trek(lens flare edition), The Bourne Ultimatum, Pirates of the Carribean, Warrior, Sin City, and other recent movies that are no where near the real top 250 movies all time ranked around it. Meanwhile, Gandhi, Dog Day Afternoon, and others are rated below it. Obviously, the IMDB Top 250 isn't anywhere close to an accurate critical measurement of movies, rather a popularity contest. Popularity contests favor the surface rather than what's underneath more often than not.

And it was nominated for no awards by any major group. The only thing close to a major award was the Saturn won by Portman, and Portman was awful. I don't think the San Diego Film Critics Society for Production Design is a major award that matters anywhere

/am I being trolled?

Why would you think I'm trolling for pointing out that a mjaority of critics and viewers like the movie and that it made a profit? And even if the IMDB Top 250 is just a "popularity contest," so what? That means the movie is popular. Does that not count toward be a success anymore?

My point is, like your opinion on what awards "matters" you seem to only focus on the critcal opinions you think "matters." In the big picture, it all matters.

And the Boondocks Saints made enough money on DVD sales to fund a sequel, a comics series, and now a video game, so just because it doesn't fit your definition of "revered" doesn't mean it wasn't a success.

ManateeGag: Apos: Raul Julia in Street Fighter is an especially painful memory for me.

He only did street fighter for his kids.

...and was one of the only two bright spots in it(the other being Ming-Na's Chun-Li). It's a bittersweet epitaph.


groppet:
Yeah it is so bad only place Ive seen it is the SyFy channel and the crappy movies they make are better.


I couldn't have said it better myself.

TFA and TFT are both epic fails without mention of Sir John Geilgud's performance in the utterly crap-tacular "Lost Horizon". Seriously, it's the all-time winner in this category by a very, very wide margin.

frepnog: Well... According to hollywood, the lord of the rings trilogy was a finacial failure. So was forrest gump. V is more than likely in the red.

I'm not seeing your point. I said the movie made $90 million profit worldwide according to third party accounting and it was therefore profitable, but you say Hollywood Accounting would would say otherwise and quote a massively inflated number without a source. And the whole point is that Hollywood Accounting is not accurate, so who cares what they would claim?

Vash The Stampede: bhcompy: 73% RT, 63% Cream of the Crop(which puts it about the same as Metacritic, whose methodology I prefer). And it's not "profit". Theaters get their cut, too. Yes, DVD sales are nice, but if that mattered so much Boondock Saints would be revered.

And that top 250 has How To Train Your Dragon, Star Trek(lens flare edition), The Bourne Ultimatum, Pirates of the Carribean, Warrior, Sin City, and other recent movies that are no where near the real top 250 movies all time ranked around it. Meanwhile, Gandhi, Dog Day Afternoon, and others are rated below it. Obviously, the IMDB Top 250 isn't anywhere close to an accurate critical measurement of movies, rather a popularity contest. Popularity contests favor the surface rather than what's underneath more often than not.

And it was nominated for no awards by any major group. The only thing close to a major award was the Saturn won by Portman, and Portman was awful. I don't think the San Diego Film Critics Society for Production Design is a major award that matters anywhere

/am I being trolled?

Why would you think I'm trolling for pointing out that a mjaority of critics and viewers like the movie and that it made a profit? And even if the IMDB Top 250 is just a "popularity contest," so what? That means the movie is popular. Does that not count toward be a success anymore?

My point is, like your opinion on what awards "matters" you seem to only focus on the critcal opinions you think "matters." In the big picture, it all matters.

And the Boondocks Saints made enough money on DVD sales to fund a sequel, a comics series, and now a video game, so just because it doesn't fit your definition of "revered" doesn't mean it wasn't a success.

Up was a critical success. Enjoyed almost universal praise from critics and fans, and all categories are higher than V.
V had a positive critical rating on average. Fans like it more than critics, and the top critics like it less than anyone.

One is a critical success. One was positively received.

How do you say that Zardoz was a low point! How can you sit there and tell me it wasn't the greatest movie ever made?!?! I dare you to!

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Glad to see Jeremy Irons on that list. Why does he do shiat fantasy movies?

Need to add John Malkovitch to this list. He was great in Empire of the Sun and Being John Malkovitch, amongst others. But then he did Eregon and Transformers 3.

Also, Anthony Hopkins has definitely earned a spot for Thor alone.

What about Road to Wellville, a movie about about Kellogg's that the company refuses to acknowledge even existing?

bhcompy: Up was a critical success. Enjoyed almost universal praise from critics and fans, and all categories are higher than V.
V had a positive critical rating on average. Fans like it more than critics, and the top critics like it less than anyone.

One is a critical success. One was positively received

Which makes it successful. It seems to me you consider anything short of universal acclaim to be a critical failure, which V for Vendetta was not, by any metric.

Vash The Stampede: frepnog: Well... According to hollywood, the lord of the rings trilogy was a finacial failure. So was forrest gump. V is more than likely in the red.

I'm not seeing your point. I said the movie made $90 million profit worldwide according to third party accounting and it was therefore profitable, but you say Hollywood Accounting would would say otherwise and quote a massively inflated number without a source. And the whole point is that Hollywood Accounting is not accurate, so who cares what they would claim?

point is on paper where it actually matters, V is a financial disaster. lots of people care.

take Micheal Moore, for instance. Fahrenheit 9/11, one of the most successful documentaries ever made, made no money and Moore never got paid.

Peter Jackson never got paid for lord of the rings.

Stan Lee had to sue because the financial failure "Spider-man" made no money and he never got paid.

see the trend?

V was a financial disaster. I can't believe anyone involved with that film ever got work in hollywood again.

frepnog: point is on paper where it actually matters, V is a financial disaster. lots of people care.

take Micheal Moore, for instance. Fahrenheit 9/11, one of the most successful documentaries ever made, made no money and Moore never got paid.

Peter Jackson never got paid for lord of the rings.

Stan Lee had to sue because the financial failure "Spider-man" made no money and he never got paid.

see the trend?

V was a financial disaster. I can't believe anyone involved with that film ever got work in hollywood again.


So your point is, the only metric that matters is how much money the studio says it made, which we've already establish is a BS number used to keep the actual profits for themselves. Ignore that actual numbers, just take the studios word for it?

Again, do you have any evidence of this so called "finacial distater" whatsoever, or are you just speculating based on other films and your own bias against the movie?

Persnickety: I see what you're saying but as someone who hasn't read the comic, I don't really care if they got the central theme right since I won't know the difference one way or another. I just want a good story.


I can relate. I'm watching Game of Thrones right now, and I haven't read the books. So for me it isn't important that they get the details right so long as the show is compelling.

But that is often the real heart of the problem when adaptions botch the source material... The details of the source material were WHY the original material was compelling to begin with. For me I enter these things with high hopes, but an open mind. If V had been good I'd have been willing to see past it's liberties with the source material.... but I just didn't think it was good. I thought it was horribly cliched, simplistic and poorly conceived.

So then you add on top of that the source material which was so amazing in *precisely* the ways that the movie failed and you get what would have been a regular crappy movie and turn it into a massive wasted opportunity as well. If the Wachowskis wanted to make the simplistic movie they made they could have done so without dragging the comic book into it.

And as far as the concept goes, what will bother me will not be if they get the color of Sansa's dress in Game of Thrones wrong... what will bother me is when they turn it into a story about friendship and togetherness. That's essentially what they did with V. They turned a timeless story about an enigmatic and brilliant psychopath - who is smart enough to know that he himself is as monstrous in his own way as the monsters he is fighting and should not be trusted to lead the country - into a lame story about a freedom fighter and a thinly veiled screed on the politics of the time.

Vash The Stampede: bhcompy: Up was a critical success. Enjoyed almost universal praise from critics and fans, and all categories are higher than V.
V had a positive critical rating on average. Fans like it more than critics, and the top critics like it less than anyone.

One is a critical success. One was positively received

Which makes it successful. It seems to me you consider anything short of universal acclaim to be a critical failure, which V for Vendetta was not, by any metric.

A 'C' is a passing grade. I would never call a 'C' a success.

Apos: ReapTheChaos: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Typically a bad movie has more to do with bad directing combined with bad editing. I don't know why so many people feel the need to blame an actor when a movie is bad.

That being said, I thought several of those movies listed where worth watching. They may not have been worth a full priced trip to the theater, but for $1 at redbox its hard to not get your moneys worth out of any movie.

I can assure you that Bloodrayne is not even worth seeing for free.

I actually have that on DVD. In all honestly I only got it to see Michelle Rodriguez though.

I...see. Personally,there are far less atrocious vehicles for that-Battle: Los Angeles, Machete and the first Resident Evil,for instance.

I would watch Bloodrayne while the biggest, fattest, sweatiest inmate from the nastiest prison on earth anally raped me until the film was over before I watch Battle: Los Angeles again. The only thing I've ever seen that was that abysmal was Battlefield Earth.

Vash The Stampede: frepnog: point is on paper where it actually matters, V is a financial disaster. lots of people care.

take Micheal Moore, for instance. Fahrenheit 9/11, one of the most successful documentaries ever made, made no money and Moore never got paid.

Peter Jackson never got paid for lord of the rings.

Stan Lee had to sue because the financial failure "Spider-man" made no money and he never got paid.

see the trend?

V was a financial disaster. I can't believe anyone involved with that film ever got work in hollywood again.


So your point is, the only metric that matters is how much money the studio says it made, which we've already establish is a BS number used to keep the actual profits for themselves. Ignore that actual numbers, just take the studios word for it?

Again, do you have any evidence of this so called "finacial distater" whatsoever, or are you just speculating based on other films and your own bias against the movie?

yer funny. i like you.

This frepnog idiot is just trolling you guys. He's going to keep quoting nothing so just give up and move on.

Strategeryz0r: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Typically a bad movie has more to do with bad directing combined with bad editing. I don't know why so many people feel the need to blame an actor when a movie is bad.

That being said, I thought several of those movies listed where worth watching. They may not have been worth a full priced trip to the theater, but for $1 at redbox its hard to not get your moneys worth out of any movie.

I can assure you that Bloodrayne is not even worth seeing for free.

I actually have that on DVD. In all honestly I only got it to see Michelle Rodriguez though.

I...see. Personally,there are far less atrocious vehicles for that-Battle: Los Angeles, Machete and the first Resident Evil,for instance.

I would watch Bloodrayne while the biggest, fattest, sweatiest inmate from the nastiest prison on earth anally raped me until the film was over before I watch Battle: Los Angeles again. The only thing I've ever seen that was that abysmal was Battlefield Earth.

Ouuuuch! The movie was disappointing but NOWHERE near the colossal cinematic turd that was Battlefield Earth. Not.Even. Close. You know it. I know it.

Meethos: This frepnog idiot is just trolling you guys. He's going to keep quoting nothing so just give up and move on.

well, to a degree, yes i am trolling. it's fun.

behind what I am saying however is truth; that is, due to hollywood accounting most successful movies make no money, and a mediocre film like V for Vendetta is a disaster.

weird how that shiat works.

frepnog: Vash The Stampede: frepnog: Well... According to hollywood, the lord of the rings trilogy was a finacial failure. So was forrest gump. V is more than likely in the red.

I'm not seeing your point. I said the movie made $90 million profit worldwide according to third party accounting and it was therefore profitable, but you say Hollywood Accounting would would say otherwise and quote a massively inflated number without a source. And the whole point is that Hollywood Accounting is not accurate, so who cares what they would claim?

point is on paper where it actually matters, V is a financial disaster. lots of people care.

take Micheal Moore, for instance. Fahrenheit 9/11, one of the most successful documentaries ever made, made no money and Moore never got paid.

Peter Jackson never got paid for lord of the rings.

Stan Lee had to sue because the financial failure "Spider-man" made no money and he never got paid.

see the trend?

V was a financial disaster. I can't believe anyone involved with that film ever got work in hollywood again.

According to the audio commentary for South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut, Matt and Trey said Paramount pulled the same stunt with them, too.

Apos: Strategeryz0r: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Typically a bad movie has more to do with bad directing combined with bad editing. I don't know why so many people feel the need to blame an actor when a movie is bad.

That being said, I thought several of those movies listed where worth watching. They may not have been worth a full priced trip to the theater, but for $1 at redbox its hard to not get your moneys worth out of any movie.

I can assure you that Bloodrayne is not even worth seeing for free.

I actually have that on DVD. In all honestly I only got it to see Michelle Rodriguez though.

I...see. Personally,there are far less atrocious vehicles for that-Battle: Los Angeles, Machete and the first Resident Evil,for instance.

I would watch Bloodrayne while the biggest, fattest, sweatiest inmate from the nastiest prison on earth anally raped me until the film was over before I watch Battle: Los Angeles again. The only thing I've ever seen that was that abysmal was Battlefield Earth.

Ouuuuch! The movie was disappointing but NOWHERE near the colossal cinematic turd that was Battlefield Earth. Not.Even. Close. You know it. I know it.

agreed. Battle:LA was pretty watchable. Ol Two Face was good in it. Battlefield Earth was like toilet paper someone wiped a bum's ass with, flimsy and stinking of ball sweat and crusty shiat.

bhcompy: Vash The Stampede: bhcompy: Up was a critical success. Enjoyed almost universal praise from critics and fans, and all categories are higher than V.
V had a positive critical rating on average. Fans like it more than critics, and the top critics like it less than anyone.

One is a critical success. One was positively received

Which makes it successful. It seems to me you consider anything short of universal acclaim to be a critical failure, which V for Vendetta was not, by any metric.

A 'C' is a passing grade. I would never call a 'C' a success.

Okay, well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but surely you can see that you're setting your own standard for success and not going by the universal standard. That's all fine and good when it comes to your personal tastes, but you don't get to decide for everyone else what constitutes a failure. You might not consider a C student a success, but your opinion doesn't decide whether or not they actually failed the class.

Apos: Raul Julia in Street Fighter is an especially painful memory for me.

Made even more painful by the fact it was his last movie.

frepnog: well, to a degree, yes i am trolling.

Damnit.... I should have known.

Vash The Stampede: bhcompy: Vash The Stampede: bhcompy: Up was a critical success. Enjoyed almost universal praise from critics and fans, and all categories are higher than V.
V had a positive critical rating on average. Fans like it more than critics, and the top critics like it less than anyone.

One is a critical success. One was positively received

Which makes it successful. It seems to me you consider anything short of universal acclaim to be a critical failure, which V for Vendetta was not, by any metric.

A 'C' is a passing grade. I would never call a 'C' a success.

Okay, well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but surely you can see that you're setting your own standard for success and not going by the universal standard. That's all fine and good when it comes to your personal tastes, but you don't get to decide for everyone else what constitutes a failure. You might not consider a C student a success, but your opinion doesn't decide whether or not they actually failed the class.

wow.

someone cue "LEAVE V ALONE!!!.jpg".

V for Vendetta was lacking in emotion? Valerie and Ruth beg to differ.

V for Vendetta's main problem was that the Norsefire government were simply black hats. They lacked any complexity which would have made the fight against them more nuanced and interesting.

No Robert DeNiro with Rocky and Bullwinkle and Little Fockers?

Vash The Stampede: frepnog: well, to a degree, yes i am trolling.

Damnit.... I should have known.


well you left out the next part where I said that "behind what I am saying however is truth; that is, due to hollywood accounting most successful movies make no money, and a mediocre film like V for Vendetta is a disaster."

it may be troll-like behavior, but it is true. true and weird and people sue over it because on it's face it is ridiculous.

but true nonetheless.

Nic Cage - 2003-present

frepnog: well you left out the next part where I said that "behind what I am saying however is truth; that is, due to hollywood accounting most successful movies make no money, and a mediocre film like V for Vendetta is a disaster."

it may be troll-like behavior, but it is true. true and weird and people sue over it because on it's face it is ridiculous.

but true nonetheless

Yes, I didn't respond to that because you acknowledged you were trolling and my point that hollywood accounting is not a trustworthy metric. I agree with you that it's a dubious practice, but It's a useless tool to argue whether or not a movie is actually finacially successful.

frepnog: Vash The Stampede: frepnog: Vash The Stampede: bhcompy: Vash The Stampede: I can see V for Vendetta not being everyone's cup of tea, but it was critically and commercially a big success, so listing it as one of Hurt's "crap" movies makes me seriously question this author's credibility.

Well, 62 metacritic rating isn't what I would call a "critical success". And commercially, it was modest. $55m budget, $133m box office.. Made money after advertising/promotion, but that's relatively modest. And only made $70m stateside

Your choice of metrics is pretty selective. I don't really see the point in only looking at domestic box office numbers.

It made about $180 Million total worldwide including DVD sales, and unless there's ome reason why that money doesn't count, even if you take away $55 million for producution and $35 million in marketing, we're still talking $90 million in profit. It's not Avatar-type money, but it made a solid profit.

Critic-wise. Metacritic is fine, but there are more metrics than that. It has a 73% rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and 88% rating from 800,000 users. It was also nominated for 17 awards and won 4. It's currently listed as number 177 on IMDB's Top 250 movies of all time with a score of 8.2. I realize there a lot of strong differeing opinions about this one, but let's not pretend it was not well recieved by a majority of viewers and critics.

v made no profit whatsoever. that movie was a a failure in most every sense of the word. it needed to make around 300-400 million to even BEGIN to break even. Don't you know anything about how hollywood works?

I assume you have a source for that claim?

hollywood accounting.

look it up.

A movie can be profitable under the normal sense of the word and not "profitable" under bullshiat Hollywood accounting.

However, the math above doesn't subtract the theaters' and overseas theatrical distributors' cuts, nor the retailers' and production costs to make and sell the DVDs. If marketing plus production costs were $90 million and total revenues were $180 million, the movie probably just about broke even or made only a slight profit, once you also subtract those additional costs.

Came here for the V for Vendetta isn't bad comments, leaving satisfied.

Author is an idiot.

Vash's Apprentice: What about Road to Wellville, a movie about about Kellogg's that the company refuses to acknowledge even existing?

well just having Kellog refuse to aknowledge a movie about the history of its company... I've read some of the stuff about the quackery and full bore insanty of the original Dr. Kellog, so any historical movie that included him as a character would probably not be welcomed by the corporation.

mongbiohazard: frepnog: i am not even talking about how much was true to the comic. i don't particularly even like the comic. the movie just... sucked. it came too late in the game, and since the characters ARE all knock-offs the film really suffered for that. It felt like "THE DOLLAR GENERAL SUPERHERO SQUAD" if that makes any sense.


If you look closely at the comic you can see how it's laid out like the storyboards for a movie. It just begged for a film adaption, so if you didn't like the comic then there was no way you were going to like the movie.

Personally, I thought they were both brilliant, and that the comic has a well deserved place as one of the greatest pieces of English literature. It had rich characters, a compelling narrative and one of the best ending twists of all time - and decades before such twists were almost passe.

But hey, if you don't like it, you don't like it.

And the movie did just that. It really was the comic, put to big screen. Veidt was miscast, but everything else was fine. The intro sequence was superb, great way to cover all the backstory stuff quickly.

I just think that Watchmen was a tale for 80s sensibilities. The nuclear arms race just doesn't have the same resonance today. Also, the characters are meant to seem like Dollar General Heroes. All of them are Captain Ersatzs of other characters... and keep in mind Watchmen brought about 20 years worth of deconstructing superheroes into darker and edgier roles.

Vash The Stampede: frepnog: well you left out the next part where I said that "behind what I am saying however is truth; that is, due to hollywood accounting most successful movies make no money, and a mediocre film like V for Vendetta is a disaster."

it may be troll-like behavior, but it is true. true and weird and people sue over it because on it's face it is ridiculous.

but true nonetheless

Yes, I didn't respond to that because you acknowledged you were trolling and my point that hollywood accounting is not a trustworthy metric. I agree with you that it's a dubious practice, but It's a useless tool to argue whether or not a movie is actually financially successful.

if it makes no money on paper, then it was not actually financially successful. On paper is where is matters and affects who does and does not get paid. In reality, the figures bandied about on the media "Hunger Games made 320 million dollars!" are the figures that are in effect imaginary, since those figures don't get anyone paid.

Dude, David Prowse was not paid for the financial disaster STAR WARS. A film that MADE NO MONEY, so much so that the man that played the villain NEVER GOT PAID because there was no money to do so.

And that, my friend, is the financial part of a movie that is reality.

When the movies are making so much money that the actors can't get paid.... well, that's failure.

Geotpf: A movie can be profitable under the normal sense of the word and not "profitable" under bullshiat Hollywood accounting.

However, the math above doesn't subtract the theaters' and overseas theatrical distributors' cuts, nor the retailers' and production costs to make and sell the DVDs. If marke ...

I seem to remember reading somewhere, can't remeber where, that a studio only pockets about 55% of the money made by a movie, the rest goes towards the things you listed. I believe there was some debate about whether or not they were going to produce the sequels to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because of its box office numbers even after it had passed its official production budget for this reason.

Apos: Strategeryz0r: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Typically a bad movie has more to do with bad directing combined with bad editing. I don't know why so many people feel the need to blame an actor when a movie is bad.

That being said, I thought several of those movies listed where worth watching. They may not have been worth a full priced trip to the theater, but for $1 at redbox its hard to not get your moneys worth out of any movie.

I can assure you that Bloodrayne is not even worth seeing for free.

I actually have that on DVD. In all honestly I only got it to see Michelle Rodriguez though.

I...see. Personally,there are far less atrocious vehicles for that-Battle: Los Angeles, Machete and the first Resident Evil,for instance.

I would watch Bloodrayne while the biggest, fattest, sweatiest inmate from the nastiest prison on earth anally raped me until the film was over before I watch Battle: Los Angeles again. The only thing I've ever seen that was that abysmal was Battlefield Earth.

Ouuuuch! The movie was disappointing but NOWHERE near the colossal cinematic turd that was Battlefield Earth. Not.Even. Close. You know it. I know it.

It entirely obliterated the rising star of Barry Pepper, and forced Travolta back into hiding.

Fano: Apos: Strategeryz0r: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Typically a bad movie has more to do with bad directing combined with bad editing. I don't know why so many people feel the need to blame an actor when a movie is bad.

That being said, I thought several of those movies listed where worth watching. They may not have been worth a full priced trip to the theater, but for $1 at redbox its hard to not get your moneys worth out of any movie.

I can assure you that Bloodrayne is not even worth seeing for free.

I actually have that on DVD. In all honestly I only got it to see Michelle Rodriguez though.

I...see. Personally,there are far less atrocious vehicles for that-Battle: Los Angeles, Machete and the first Resident Evil,for instance.

I would watch Bloodrayne while the biggest, fattest, sweatiest inmate from the nastiest prison on earth anally raped me until the film was over before I watch Battle: Los Angeles again. The only thing I've ever seen that was that abysmal was Battlefield Earth.

Ouuuuch! The movie was disappointing but NOWHERE near the colossal cinematic turd that was Battlefield Earth. Not.Even. Close. You know it. I know it.

It entirely obliterated the rising star of Barry Pepper, and forced Travolta back into hiding.

he sure has been in a bunch of films for someone that had his career obliterated back in 2000.

Low Points: Zardoz...

SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH.

/just kidding, haven't seen it, but it sounds awesome

ununcle: alowishus: FTFA

King Ralph, which remains the greatest movie with John Goodman second only to every other movie John Goodman has ever been in.

Great movies that feature John Goodman

The Artist
Monsters Inc.
O Brother Where Art Thou
Bringing Out the Dead
The Big Lebowski
Raising Arizona

Also, WTF is bad about V for Vendetta?

You forgot Fallen.

BB2000?

I love King Ralph, V for Vendetta and SW: E1

xant: Low Points: Zardoz...

SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH.

/just kidding, haven't seen it, but it sounds awesome


If by awesome you mean laughably, hilariously bad... then yes. Yes it is. I have it on my media server at home and it's every bit as bad as it's described as. Probably worse than you're imagining. I dare you to watch that movie and not laugh at something which wasn't intended to be funny.

mongbiohazard: xant: Low Points: Zardoz...

SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH.

/just kidding, haven't seen it, but it sounds awesome


If by awesome you mean laughably, hilariously bad... then yes. Yes it is. I have it on my media server at home and it's every bit as bad as it's described as. Probably worse than you're imagining. I dare you to watch that movie and not laugh at something which wasn't intended to be funny.

but is it THIS bad?

frepnog: mongbiohazard: xant: Low Points: Zardoz...

SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH.

/just kidding, haven't seen it, but it sounds awesome


If by awesome you mean laughably, hilariously bad... then yes. Yes it is. I have it on my media server at home and it's every bit as bad as it's described as. Probably worse than you're imagining. I dare you to watch that movie and not laugh at something which wasn't intended to be funny.

but is it THIS bad?

[blogs.bet.com image 430x323]

Anything with Terry Crews in a comedic role is worth watching.

List fails without Robert De Niro in the Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

Oh and the entire cast of Godfather part 3.

Denzel Washington in Virtuousity and John Lithgow in Ricochet deserve dishonorable mentions.

Apos: Strategeryz0r: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Apos: ReapTheChaos: Typically a bad movie has more to do with bad directing combined with bad editing. I don't know why so many people feel the need to blame an actor when a movie is bad.

That being said, I thought several of those movies listed where worth watching. They may not have been worth a full priced trip to the theater, but for $1 at redbox its hard to not get your moneys worth out of any movie.

I can assure you that Bloodrayne is not even worth seeing for free.

I actually have that on DVD. In all honestly I only got it to see Michelle Rodriguez though.

I...see. Personally,there are far less atrocious vehicles for that-Battle: Los Angeles, Machete and the first Resident Evil,for instance.

I would watch Bloodrayne while the biggest, fattest, sweatiest inmate from the nastiest prison on earth anally raped me until the film was over before I watch Battle: Los Angeles again. The only thing I've ever seen that was that abysmal was Battlefield Earth.

Ouuuuch! The movie was disappointing but NOWHERE near the colossal cinematic turd that was Battlefield Earth. Not.Even. Close. You know it. I know it.


You know, unlike others in this thread, I'm not going to decry you as wrong because this is truly my personal opinion of the film. But I may have fallen prey to my own excitement. I saw the trailers for Battle: LA and I got immediately excited. I always thought that would be a cool premise, the whole man on the street during the attempts to repel an alien invasion intrigued me. The trailers made it look like it was done right.

Eckhart seemed to phone it in to me. That was not the man I thought made films like Thank You for Smoking farking awesome. He just acted like he was collecting his paycheck.

The direction was just abysmal. I get it's difficult to make that format work, and very very easy to fark it up. But I would honestly watch the Blair Witch Project a dozen times before I have my visual receptors assaulted by that travesty of film making. The trailers made it look much better than it was, but I suspect bad editing rather than overall direction. It felt like a lot of the film was cut out.

The set piece action moments just did not draw me in. I wanted Black Hawk Down meets Aliens. I got what felt like a SyFy movie with an insane budget and the $Texas theatre price tag(huge mistake, shoulda waited for DVD)

The dialogue, holy shiat to call it stereotypical is an understatement. Did a 5th grader write this thing or what? It wasn't a comedy but the banter was so laughably bad I was cracking up like it was.

It was, honest to god, the first time I walked out of a theater and tried to get my money back because it was so bad to me. I had never been so disappointed in anything since Battlefield Earth(hence the comparison).

Battlefield Earth on the other hand truly is the worst film ever made. Ever. Yet, for some reason, whenever I see it on TV I feel compelled to watch it. It's like seeing the most horrific train/plane/car accident you've ever seen in your life. You know it's making you nauseous, yet... you can't stop looking at it.

frepnog: mongbiohazard: xant: Low Points: Zardoz...

SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH.

/just kidding, haven't seen it, but it sounds awesome


If by awesome you mean laughably, hilariously bad... then yes. Yes it is. I have it on my media server at home and it's every bit as bad as it's described as. Probably worse than you're imagining. I dare you to watch that movie and not laugh at something which wasn't intended to be funny.

but is it THIS bad?

[blogs.bet.com image 430x323]


WORSE. Seriously. That said, worth watching with your buddies on a "bad movie night" in a way that White Chicks is not. Just do a GIS for Sean Connery in that movie and check out his outfit and you'll probably get an inkling of what kind of movie you're in for.

Apos: Raul Julia in Street Fighter is an especially painful memory for me.

I was stunned Raul Julia didn't make the list. Connery must have edged him out because he's been in more horrible movies than Julia was.