~Worst Movie You Have Ever Seen~

[AllieBaba]

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

Loved it.

But, like Schindler's List, it isn't a movie to watch over and over and over. Though I have watched it a few times.

 

[AllieBaba]

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 not about his life. It's about the Passion. If it was about his life, it would be called "The Life and Times of Christ".

Not rocket science.

 

[Nosmo King]

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 not about his life. It's about the Passion. If it was about his life, it would be called "The Life and Times of Christ".

Not rocket science.

But from a film fan's point of view, Gibson's directing seemed more than a little heavy handed. The best films are those where you don't notice the directing or the cinematography until you review the film in your head or get a second viewing.

Like literature, you never really come away with the whole of the work on first viewing. The way an author sets the scene with descriptive words, a director sets the scene with what the French call mis-en-scene. The little details and camera angles that make the meaning of the scene deeper and enjoyable rather than documentary.

 

[rightwinger]

Terms of Endearment

Hated all the characters. Hated the mother, the husband, Jack Nicholson

When the woman finally dies...who cared?

 

[Sallow]

just for comparison, what are your views on Apocalypse Now?

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?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

The point of The Passion was to bring to life the horror our Savior went through, not give you something to chew Gummy Bears to.

I believe that movie changed people's lives.

 

[Mr Natural]

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.

The point of The Passion was to bring to life the horror our Savior went through, not give you something to chew Gummy Bears to.

I believe that movie changed people's lives.

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.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Waterworld

 

[mudwhistle]

Terms of Endearment

Hated all the characters. Hated the mother, the husband, Jack Nicholson

When the woman finally dies...who cared?

Hater

 

[jillian]

Terms of Endearment

Hated all the characters. Hated the mother, the husband, Jack Nicholson

When the woman finally dies...who cared?

you hate puppies, too, don't you?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

The point of The Passion was to bring to life the horror our Savior went through, not give you something to chew Gummy Bears to.

I believe that movie changed people's lives.

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.

 

[Dabs]

The point of The Passion was to bring to life the horror our Savior went through, not give you something to chew Gummy Bears to.

I believe that movie changed people's lives.

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.

Hey, no problem for me, that's my favorite word ~LoL~

 

[Grace]

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.

 

[AllieBaba]

The point of The Passion was to bring to life the horror our Savior went through, not give you something to chew Gummy Bears to.

I believe that movie changed people's lives.

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.

 

[Mr Natural]

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.

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.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Yes, and it could have been done far better. Case in point "2010". Again, no computer generated graphics. Better pacing, soundtrack, same level of acting and questions at the end. The one humorous part about the special effects in 2001 was that it was done by the same crew who did the SFX for "Doctor Who" for the BBC. They were just given a real budget for the first time in their lives.

Comparing 2010 to 2001 is like comparing Lady Gaga to the Mona Lisa.

Ugh.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Hey, no problem for me, that's my favorite word ~LoL~

Mine too. But only as a verb.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, this is an idea sort of stolen from Zona

In your opinion, what is the worst movie you have ever seen??

The Accidental Tourist from 1988. It is the only movie I have ever paid to see where I actually got up and walked out mid-movie.

Oh Hell! I've walked out on plenty of movies! That's probably why I no longer go to the movies. The last one I remember walking away from was Independence Day. I was writing the screenplay in my head while I watched and my version was better.

Someone told me Independence Day was serious science fiction, and I believed it. About half-way through, I realized he actually thought it was. Short date.

 

[MaggieMae]

What was it specifically about 2001: A Space Odyssey that you didn't like?

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?

 

[SW2SILVER]

I have to mention BORAT. After reading about "Human Centipede", I hesitate. Thanks for the warning. What motivates these studios to make such drek?