Your Worst 10

I still remember your hilarious "Men Who Stare At Goats" post on Old MI6, M_Balje.

HJackson wrote:

2001 is a profoundly cold and soulless film, more devoid of humanity than just about any other film I've seen. It also strikes me that a great amount of the film is utterly meaningless, and attempts I've seen to interpret portions of it seem to rely on absurd, exogenous impositions on the film which suggests it can hardly stand on its own two feet.

Seen much Antonioni?

Dismissing the bulk of 2001 as meaningless, when you've got so many legit interpretations, ranging from the prosaic (the author's own novel off the film) to some really inspired work written by fans (the Indiana state university book is pretty amazing as I recall) seems amazingly out of line to me. I mean, I've tried watching Mann's HEAT 3 times and never gotten more than an hour into it without dozing. But I don't dismiss it as a PoS, just that it AIN'T FOR ME.

And I think the 'cold' argument doesn't hold all that much water either. My wife is practically like Tom Hanks in terms of how over the moon she is during the Floyd/Russians exchange at the space station, because there is just SO MUCH going on beneath the chitchat. Ditto for the on-the-surface-utterly-lameass-moonbase-briefing, which for me exists just so Floyd can slam them with the bit about their security oaths. It ain't cold, it is modulated. In fact, it is modulated for a different set of frequencies than the norm -- sort of like John Boorman shooting guys in green suits in a green room in POINT BLANK -- it makes you look at the film differently, with your eyes and senses dialed to a fresh setting.

I don't find all of the 'trip' section to be wholly effective (and never have), but outside of that and a certain vagueness in midfilm that wouldn't be there if Kubrick hadn't felt compelled to cut stuff after a bad preview, I find it very nearly faultless. And that's after 22 viewings in the cinema and god knows how many on laserdisc and DVD, plus with the burden of knowing way way way too much about how the film was made, which does interfere with the experience of watching it, or at the very least dilutes it.

I would say that your comments re: 2001 fit my response to PROMETHEUS to a fucking T, all you have to add is words to the effect of 'crassly calculated.'

Largo's Shark wrote:

I'll let O Harms deal with you. He knows what to do with the Kubrick heretics.

I've said enough about 2001 in the past. Yeah, I think it's one of the greatest films ever, and yeah, I think good ol' HJackson's claims are way off-base, but you can't win 'em all.

Another one for the "hate it vehemently" pile: MELANCHOLIA.

Some more.

ANTICHRIST
DOGVILLE
BREAKING THE WAVES
BATTLE ROYALE
SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE
THE WHITE RIBBON
THIRST
FROM DUSK TILL DAWN
The HOTEL films
PLANET TERROR
DEATH PROOF

STAR WARS

Jack Wade wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Seen much Antonioni?

Yes, he's one of my favourite filmmakers.

trevanian wrote:

Dismissing the bulk of 2001 as meaningless, when you've got so many legit interpretations, ranging from the prosaic (the author's own novel off the film) to some really inspired work written by fans (the Indiana state university book is pretty amazing as I recall) seems amazingly out of line to me. I mean, I've tried watching Mann's HEAT 3 times and never gotten more than an hour into it without dozing. But I don't dismiss it as a PoS, just that it AIN'T FOR ME.

Citing the novel as a source of interpretation says a lot about the quality of the film and its ability to stand by itself as a work of art. If you're required to have engaged with a different work of art in order to take anything from a film, I think the derivative work is rather lousy.

As for the 'out of line' comment, I don't really mind if that's how I come across. I doubt anybody here would care if I were to dismiss Emin or Hirst as non-artists, and they've certainly been interpreted by people in the past. I don't see why I should hold my tongue about 2001 just because some people seem to think it is perfect. Indeed, it actually seems to make it all the more worthwhile to express what I hate about it.

I'm going to give 2001 another chance at some point in the near future and I'll respond to the rest of your points after I've refreshed myself on the specific content of the film.

I had blocked this one out of my mind, so painful was the viewing experience, but Burton's DARK SHADOWS is definitely a contender for any "Bottom 10" list I could compile.

THE DARK KNIGHT
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS
LA VALLÉE
SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET
SCARFACE (1983)
FEMME FATALE
CASUALTIES OF WAR
MOULIN ROUGE (2001)
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
NATURAL BORN KILLERS
BASIC INSTINCT
SHOWGIRLS


tbc

I liked FEMME FATALE okay on a first go, and I loved it on the second.

Manhunter wrote:

THE DARK KNIGHT
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS
SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET
MOULIN ROUGE (2001)

Some nice choices there.

I don't care what anyone says. MOULIN ROUGE! is awesome.

It's saccharine, tasteless, and downright vomit inducing.

HJackson wrote:

I'm going to give 2001 another chance at some point in the near future and I'll respond to the rest of your points after I've refreshed myself on the specific content of the film.

Sounds good. And as far as differing viewpoints from the consensus, I'm way off the charts some of the time myself. My exceedingly negative view of 2006 CR -- not just of Craig as 007, but the movie itself -- often goes over like a lead balloon, though I think I've made a few valid points that have gotten accepted by some down through the years.

Some of these lists are boggling. 2001? THERE WILL BE BLOOD? THE DARK KNIGHT? I can understand why some might not be fans of them, but outright hating them enough to be 10 Worst films ever? Seems more like a thread about hating popular movies than genuinely bad ones. I wasn't a fan of THE BIG LEBOWSKI when I first saw it, but I didn't think it was the worst thing I ever saw.


Worst films should be something like BATTLEFIELD EARTH, or the TWILIGHT films.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Worst films should be something like BATTLEFIELD EARTH, or the TWILIGHT films.

But then we'd just be typing out the same old shit. May as well just post links to Ebert reviews, RiffTrax videos or something. Talk about beating a dead horse and then some.

I'll say technically DOGVILLE is a far better film the THE ROOM, but in all its lofty pretensions, I find it a heck a good deal more offensive.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Worst films should be something like BATTLEFIELD EARTH, or the TWILIGHT films.

From a more "objective" POV, if there is such a thing, perhaps. But I'm just going with the films that left me the angriest after watching them.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Some of these lists are boggling. 2001? THERE WILL BE BLOOD? THE DARK KNIGHT? I can understand why some might not be fans of them, but outright hating them enough to be 10 Worst films ever? Seems more like a thread about hating popular movies than genuinely bad ones. I wasn't a fan of THE BIG LEBOWSKI when I first saw it, but I didn't think it was the worst thing I ever saw.


Worst films should be something like BATTLEFIELD EARTH, or the TWILIGHT films.

I agree. I think the people in this thread are confusing "terrible films" films they hate for one reason or another.

Isn't this subjective? It's just 10 movies you dislike. That could be anything, right?

And, to be fair, those Nolan Batman flicks aren't made of gold.

Manhunter wrote:

THERE WILL BE BLOOD
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND

SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET
SCARFACE (1983)

MOULIN ROUGE (2001)
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
NATURAL BORN KILLERS

SHOWGIRLS

I'm with you on these. Pure trash, especially that ETERNAL SPOTLIGHT OF THE SUNBURNT EYE. Jim Carrey can't go through one film without acting like a fucking half-wit.

I thought SHOWGIRLS was hilarious...

I like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, not my favorite Spielberg but I dig it. I simply can't not enjoy SCARFACE, ever. First time I saw THERE WILL BE BLOOD I thought it was overrated, but when I gave that a rental I really loved it and prefer it to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

I love Saving Private Ryan. Most criticisms, i.e. that it ejaculates prematurely, are at worst incorrect and at best overstated.

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN's a terrific film, as is Gondry's ETERNAL SHINE. SHOWGIRS is a decent satire, though definitely not Verhoeven's best.

You all know how I stand on De Palma's SCARFACE.

Largo's Shark wrote:

You all know how I stand on De Palma's SCARFACE.

SCARFACE is a great film, unfortunately sullied for many by the patronage of retards.

I love the energy of the first half.

HJackson wrote: