Jump to content
Floshenbarnical

What’s the worst film you have ever seen?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, barkbat said:

But the film is (IN MY OPINION) just a mess of weird skits full of thoroughly dislikeable people with very little to say for themselves. There's this cold hatred that just permeates the thing, which is fine, but it has nothing to say, or at least nothing I could discern. It felt like I was watching a precocious teenagers musings on his narcissist parents. And how he wants to bang chicks. Also by the way I NORMALLY LOVE KUBRICK HARD.

 

The sequences are weird and the people thoroughly dislikable because for the vast majority of the film they're being dreamed by a narcissist who's just had his comfortable reality pricked and his ego shattered by his wife revealing her fantasies of infidelity, which he previously couldn't possibly have conceived of. It goes heavy with on the nose symbolism since dreams are often that way and the novel was written in Vienna in Freud's time so all that stuff was very much in the air. The encounters he has aren't with real people, they're with figures who exist solely for his benefit, for him to react to. Particularly women, who all obviously throw themselves at him in the most over the top manner possible when they aren't having the most horribly mechanistic and stylised sex possible with others, as he watches. That idea of a world existing purely for the illumination of a character is obviously pretty normal for narrative fiction and Kubrick plays around with that throughout the film, mostly by undercutting the expectations that some revelations or character development will occur.

 

To me it's really a psychological portrait of a very superficial man. There's a lack of overt thematic depth because he lacks depth (though I think there's plenty of depth in the film as a whole, much of it subtext). So often in the film he's asked a question and responds by repeating the question back, because there's nothing to him. He's ostensibly a successful person, but he's just coasting through life, oblivious to what's under the surface. He doesn't even really have any sort of epiphany after his 'adventure' is over. That's part of what's suggested by the title of course, and I love that Kubrick went with that rather than 'Dream Story' which gives the game away before it's even begun. In fact it's so much more ambiguous than the source material in general that I find it hard not to imagine that he wasn't chuckling to himself, knowing exactly how misunderstood it was likely to be. Kubrick was a big fan of David Lynch and it's easily his most Lynchian work.

 

All of this seems more the sort of film you might expect from the 1960s European avant-garde or something but somehow it exists as this big-budget Hollywood effort ingeniously cast with the world's most famous celebrity couple, one of whom is as perfectly bland as the character needs him to be. It's Kubrick going balls out using all the reputation he'd built up over the years to make this mad fucking blockbuster art project only he could've got the backing for and that he must've known full well would go down like a lead balloon, especially with how it'd be marketed. And it's all wrapped up in gorgeous but slightly unsettling Christmassy lighting with lashings of Ligeti and Shostakovich. What's not to like?

 

There's certainly a disturbing coldness to it (not a new accusation with Kubrick of course), but that's part of what's amazing about it. If it wasn't sterile and unpleasant it wouldn't have the unity that it does.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rsdio said:

What's not to like?

 

I had this discussion with @lordcookie years ago, and the answer now is the same then. Everything you mention above is presented and told in the most simplistic and unsophisticated way possible. All the visual and diegetic 'clues' to the 'reality' of the situation are 'train going into a tunnel' levels of narrative obviousness.

 

That's fine, and I'm sure people not accustomed to trying to puzzle out a subtext appreciate it (I'm not a fan of deliberate obscurity either, as you'll see in my entry earlier) but whatever you think of the meta-textual way it's put together, the film's just boring. Maybe if Kubrick had managed his famous, "I'm editing this shit up to the last minute and beyond" instead of carking it, that would have made it some sort of classic.

 

By the way, I'm sure all us usual suspects had this exact same conversation 12 years ago :D

 

https://rllmukforum.com/index.php?/topic/159274-ever-walked-out-of-a-movie/&page=3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Treble said:

 

I had this discussion with @lordcookie years ago, and the answer now is the same then. Everything you mention above is presented and told in the most simplistic and unsophisticated way possible. All the visual and diegetic 'clues' to the 'reality' of the situation are 'train going into a tunnel' levels of narrative obviousness.

 

I agree as far as the dream content goes, since that's the whole point. He's a repressed and uninteresting man so of course his fantasies are as obvious and vanilla as they come. 'There are weird people out there driven solely by sex and I never knew? They must be like, a secret society or something!' They're all still a delight to watch (and listen to) for me though, and never boring.

 

As I said, I think it's a pure character study (or non-character study) and not really a mystery, but even so there's still obviously enough ambiguity in the overall structure for many to either miss or just not agree that most of it is a dream, despite how over the top much of that part of the film is. I think a lot of that might have to do with the fact that the style doesn't really change - clinical Kubrickian reality just becomes clinical Kubrickian unreality. It just seems to flow from reality into the dream and back again in a totally natural and linear way, but with little discordant notes like the mask on the pillow.

 

Obviously anyone's more than welcome to dislike it, I just don't agree that there's nothing to it or that it's a mishmash of sequences that don't work together. To me it's tremendously unified.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2019 at 08:16, Darwock said:

 

Freddie got Fingered.

 

Back in the early 2000s my drinking buddies and I loved us some daft/crap movies, Austin Powers 2 quotes were our bread and butter.

 

One day my mates started introducing all these new references I didn't get - told me about this movie and were bigging it up massively.

 

They brought it round to watch before we went out one time. After about 5 minutes being subjected to it I was asking myself 'who are these people I call my friends???'

 

 

Freddie Got Fingered is very very special, and massively misunderstood.

 

 

RedLetterMedia's re:view on youtube summed it up well as Mike defends the movie to Jay.  Jay explains that he can't tell if Tom Green is clever enough to be doing what Mike thinks he's doing, and I have to say I agree with Mike.

 

Freddie Got Fingered came out around the time of those awful teen movies that were popular and cheap to make.  For every American Pie, there's an American Pie 2, Ameican Pie Band Camp, American Pie The Wedding and so on.  

 

What Tom Green seemed to be doing was to make a movie that parodied itself and the whole industry.  There's a plot that mirrors pretty much every movie of the genre, boy meets girl, things happen, boy learns life lesson and gets the girl in the end.  But it's so brilliantly put together that everything is massively oversimplified.  Tom loses a million dollars because he spends it all on "jewels". His parents take him to the bus stop, only to present him with a car, at the bus stop, which he gets in and drives away, even though evenyone else in the scene is going to the same destination and would easily fit in the car.  It all makes sense, whilst making no sense, and the movie production must surely mirror the events in the film, especially the overarching plot that someone gave Tom Green loads of money to make a cartoon based on something incredibly stupid (X-ray  cat that can see through wooden doors, and only wooden doors). Surely the whole film is a sly dig at the people who saw his popularity and decided to cash in and gave him money to make the movie in the first place?

 

Definitely worth a rewatch and reassesment!

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the movies I've seen, I really didn't like The Matrix Revolutions. I'm not going to say I was the biggest fan of the first one and the second was a bit iffy when Colonel Sanders showed up. However, the 'to be continued' at the end of Reloaded had me excited to see how they were going to conclude the story. Sadly, it was, for me, concluded via a turgid mess that none of the epic fight scenes or fancy special effects could redeem. I haven't really left a cinema as disappointed and that's including after the Star Wars prequels.

 

Having said that, I'm willing to give it a rewatch at some point to see if I just misunderstood what it was doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rsdio said:

Eyes Wide Shut is one of Kubrick's best and most rewarding films. Every viewing is a treat. The marketing of it as 'The sexiest film ever made!' and the casting of Kidman and Cruise always seemed to be a Trojan Horse sort of deal to get audiences in to see something which actually paints love, marriage and sex as mundane and horrifying, even when (or perhaps especially when) it involves very beautiful people, but even twenty years later it all still seems like a millstone around the neck of the film. It's actually one of the least sexy films I can think of.

 

 

 

I thought it did a really great job of showcasing the filthy, hollow, desperate nature of the kind of bacchanalian pursuits we think we want. The disillusionment he feels when he discovers they’re all fake, seedy, manipulative liars after being obsessed with the idea of submitting to his lustful desires is a timeless, perennial story and perfectly captured in this film - ashes in his mouth etc. The pointlessness of pursuing fame and fortune, etc, because the above is often why people pursue it. I’m explaining myself poorly because I’m tired but I hope I’m doing an ok job. I had similar disillusionment recently in my life, thought it was a great film. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Floshenbarnical You've done a very good job! I think all that stuff is in there and you've articulated it really well, as has @Rsdio.  I don't deny there are strong themes in the film, I just feel they are presented in an obvious way. As they are barely sub-textual, and repeated through the film, that makes the film turgid (for me).

 

I did appreciate a lot of what was going on though. Choosing Hollywood's golden couple as the leads,  utilising Cruise's weirdness and superficiality, and emphasising how much more talented, nuanced and sophisticated Kidman is as an actor were real life jabs at the studios, at fame and (possibly very unfairly) at the two people themselves.

 

Ethics aside, that's a very clever thing to do. I'd definitely urge people to watch it and make up their own minds - it definitely doesn't make my list of worst film experiences by a long chalk. I saw The Phantom Menace twice at the cinema ffs :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been as disgusted by a film as some in here, nor have I ever walked out of a film. Or not finished it if I could stay awake.

 

After all, if they're saving all of their creativity for something, there's a decent chance it's the denouement, right?

 

So I'm not sure what the worst film I've ever seen is, but a recent trip to see Escape Room certainly showed me the dodgiest script I can remember making it to the big screen. The whole thing came across as something written in a second language. The eight people in the cinema all had a bit of a laugh as the credits rolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the films I have seen at the cinema it's a score draw between:

 

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

Plunkett & Macleane 

Spectre

 

Spectre wins on penalties as it's the most recent one so I can fully recall just how bad it was. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2019 at 09:25, jerellis1 said:

I always have my answer ready for whenever this question comes up. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Proof of Life:

 

I fucking love this film. Thanks for reminding me about it, I'll watch it again at the weekend. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go with Gremlins 2 partly because it is objectively awful and an insult to the wonderful original, but also because its an excuse to post one of my favourite sketches courtesy of Key and Peele:

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/03/2019 at 17:43, Made of Ghosts said:

Maybe not "ever" but some recent ones that spring to mind:

 


Darkest Hour

 

On 11/03/2019 at 17:48, Loik V credern said:

Darkest Hour?

 

I haven't seen Darkest Hour but I know it was well regarded, possibly he means THE Darkest Hour?

 

It's fucking terrible and we'll worth anyone's vote for worst film.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, schmojo said:

I've never been as disgusted by a film as some in here, nor have I ever walked out of a film. Or not finished it if I could stay awake.

 

Clearly not someone who chose his 11th birthday party to be to watch Speed 2 with friends at the cinema.

 

I think I watched the trailer and saw that er that doesn't look like Keanu fuck it excited anyway.

 

Avatar and Tron Legacy still probably outbore it in terms of cinema watches though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Yobo Ahoy said:

I haven't seen Darkest Hour but I know it was well regarded, possibly he means THE Darkest Hour?

 

It's fucking terrible and we'll worth anyone's vote for worst film.

 

2011 doesn't seem too near. He might just really hate Churchill and by the train scene couldn't take much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Yobo Ahoy said:

 

 

I haven't seen Darkest Hour but I know it was well regarded, possibly he means THE Darkest Hour?

 

It's fucking terrible and we'll worth anyone's vote for worst film.

 

 

Darkest Hour had plenty critics for showing a very controversial figure in an overly flattering light, not least entirely fabricated scenes of the famously privileged (quaffed fillet steak and fine champagne all through the war while others were rationed) descending into the subway to be with his people, which his then secretary made utterly scathing comments about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ex girlfriend is the spitting image of the woman from 3rd Rock. I’m not exaggerating - I would put up side by sides but I don’t have her permission and that would probably be hard to get these days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/03/2019 at 23:36, James Lyon said:

Of the movies I've seen, I really didn't like The Matrix Revolutions. I'm not going to say I was the biggest fan of the first one and the second was a bit iffy when Colonel Sanders showed up. However, the 'to be continued' at the end of Reloaded had me excited to see how they were going to conclude the story.

 

Because of Reloaded, I've never seen Revolutions. Terminator 3 was out at around the same time, but that gets away from being mentioned here because of its ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could find the link, but I read a study that said if a film ends well, the audience will give it a more positive review. Even if the rest of it was tripe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avatar

 

Just awful. Made worse by the hype.

 

I'm sure I've seen worse but I can't remember the titles. You know, when you get to the and you're angry that this film stole 2 hours of your life. 

 

There was one,. I think it was the Forrest? Set in Japan with madge from Game of thrones?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Southland Tales, the second film by the guy who did Donnie Darko. An all star cast spend 2 1/2 hours stumbling through utterly pretentious incomprehensible nonsense. It's so shite the it makes me think the Donnie Darko was really only good by accident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, GokouD said:

Southland Tales, the second film by the guy who did Donnie Darko. An all star cast spend 2 1/2 hours stumbling through utterly pretentious incomprehensible nonsense. It's so shite the it makes me think the Donnie Darko was really only good by accident. 

Mark Kermode references that tons in his review of the latest movie by It Follows director, quite funny, I linked to it in movie blog thread 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.