Where to start, where to start. 1) Barely a whimper from Naomi Watts when Kong first shows up, one of films great scenes destroyed, no sense of terror what so ever. 2) Naomi Watts taking Kong ice skating in New York! 3) Taken by a massive gorilla, on the edge of a cliff and what happens. Does she get scared? No she does a dance! 4) Kong looking like a love struck teenager before he falls to his death.
Yeah World War Z at least had some impressive action sequences if you turned off your brain as to how they could have occurred in the first place. I have no idea how that zombie got on the plane.
@Gawler - But... but... I liked the ice-skating scene in New York! It was so romantic - and it's only when I pinpointed why I enjoyed the scene that I realise how weird that is seeing as the male protag in that particular scene is a... gigantic gorilla Watts not uttering a peep upon seeing King Kong - well, different people react differently to such a scary sight. Stunned speechless isn't so far-fetched. However, I've never seen the original King Kong movie so there was nothing to ruin for me. You have a point about Watts dancing rather than being scared... But, but! It's supposed to be about how there's more humanity in the beast than there is humanity in man! Although I'm now wondering if the original was just supposed to be an unadulterated monster movie...? @Selbbin - My reaction to The Room: Are you sure that's a movie and not just a spoof...?
TV - all 'reality' shows (full disclosure: I do watch The Incredible Doctor Pol, though I have to turn my head during the (far too frequent) castration segments), and most sitcoms (how Two Broke Girls lasted beyond the pilot is one of life's great mysteries). Film - most chick flicks, especially The Notebook, and Star Trek - Into Darkness was one of the worst movies I've ever sen.
In the "awfulness" contest nothing can beat the "Avalanche Sharks" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2622826/ ) ...or maybe the "Sharknado" movies? ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2724064/ )
Yes. The 'cartoons' on Fox (Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.), and the Comedy Central offering so beloved by self-styled hipsters, South Park - all unfunny and often intentionally offensive.
I suppose it's uncool to mention Ed Wood's movies, but remember - they were not intended as comedies! (Though you'd never know it when they contain lines like: "Future events such as these will affect you in the future." )
Hmm, not sure about this. To me, bashing South Park seems more hipster-ish than liking it considering it's a mainstream success. Seeing as it's satire, it's a little ironic you use the phrase "intentionally offensive" as though it were an insult. That's the point isn't it? Sure, it is juvenile and crass about 98% of the time but that doesn't take away from the fact it offers some pretty accurate/scathing commentary on American culture. Not exactly earth shattering stuff, but a little harsh to skewer it for its writing.
Nope not offended. In fact I agree XD Superman isn't my favorite comic book character (or even close to it) but I do love some of his most well written stories (All-Star Superman, For the Man Who Has Everything, Red Son, Godfall, For All Seasons, Secret Identity and a few others) But I am inclined to agree about Man of Steel for the most part. The pacing was all over the place and I kinda think the movie's tone was to dark. Not that a dark tone was bad but for a Superman movie I'd of prefered something more like bight, with very bold colors and kinda like a futuristic feel. I know they were going for a more like realistic take but all the Religious allegory and bad writing was.....just bleh. Superman being a religious figure is one of my least favorite versions of the character, I much prefer when it when a focus on his more altruistic aspects and the fall out from his mercy or when his moral limit is tested. But boy that final fight in Man of Steel was drawn out......lol Dragged on and and on and on. I think they'd of been better off using a story from the comic and adapting it for movie or........ya know? They should of let me write it. I'd a been cool with that to
My list could be huge but I'll go with - Mac and Me - the E.T. rip off. It's terrible - corny, materialistic and weird. The mc is played by an actor who is wheelchair bound - I mean you can't really slam a child actor but he's not very friendly. Also the wheelchair makes certain things ( in this movie ) seem goofy. For instance the idiot alien takes their new home that they've just moved into and has cut holes in paintings, and walls and doors and dragged in plants ( which he's glued to the ceiling and hung from a fan. ) The mother wakes up and blames the two boys - I can believe you did this. First of all the boy in the wheelchair couldn't have done much damage and the older boy has already been shown as the responsible one and is clearly just as flabbergasted. Plus the wheelchair is used to create alternates between terror and excitement. He can't stop himself from flying off the cliff that surrounds his house and is nearly killed. Saved only from drowning by the alien. But he can ride down the highway into oncoming traffic and crash through fences like he was driving some souped up motorbike. It was a terrible way of depicting someone confined to a wheelchair. I think one of the worst things though is when the characters displayed knowledge that they should not have had. At the beginning of the movie the aliens are slurped into a space probe. As though the aliens were made of boneless rubber. Before the kids have even met the alien or seen much of it they decide to catch him using ... a vacuum cleaner. Who tries to suck a living creature up a vacuum cleaner? They didn't know it wouldn't hurt him. And how is that supposed to endear us towards them?
This thread is starting to remind me of the words of advice spoken in my early days of trying to make a movie: most people have no idea how to read a script. It's pretty clear that many find it difficult to recognize the difference between bad writing and bad film-making. A lot of the complaints seem to me to be bad directorial decisions, poor acting, or budget constraints. Another problem is that people are commenting on what they like, not on the merits of the work itself. The adult cartoons are often well-written, just not to your taste. However, The quality of Simpsons writing clearly declined over the years. The other problem is that the Director and/or Producer often change the story while filming or in post production, which is not a reflection of the script or the merits of the writing. It's actually quite hard to determine good writing without looking at the script. Luckily I like to do that, and know that some of the worst writing was actually for some of the best films. The Rock has the most poorly written script I've ever come across. Most of the good stuff was put in by Michael Bay, and the film worked because of excellent direction and music. But the original writing was dreadful and dialogue useless. Another poor script was Braveheart. Oddly enough, because I love the film. Gibson worked wonders in reworking the story, adding and removing dialogue, and fixing dreadfully bad scenes that had no chance of working. Had they filmed the script as written, Braveheart would have been shit. So to judge the quality of film or TV writing, the end product is not a reliable reflection of the writing.
Be chill, bruh. It's all love here. Have a cookie. Would you like chocolate chip, macadamia nut, or peanut butter?
As with many art, the plasticity could down right be intentional and gives no impression of what was going through the mind of the creator, or what happens behind the scenes. I agree that opinions are not a valid basis for critique, unless your taste happens to be intertwined with real fundamental understanding of the world of art. In this case, I was not very specific I know, but the little I've seen from the most recent cartoons simply repelled me. It must be that my taste here gives no chance to have genuine outlook into the creativeness of these shows, because the first impression of the tone and appearance are not something I prefer seeing through in my spare time. Indeed, a matter of taste and I doubt I can let that go, even if I acknowledged the people behind the drawing board and writers.
I would strongly recommend watching the original. Even though it is 80 years old and the special effects are crude by todays standards. Fay Wray screaming her head off when Kong first arrives is an iconic scene in movies. Despite its age, it is light years ahead of Jackson's version.
For TV shows...Well I don't watch a lot. But Soap Operas...my goodness! Movies, my main one is, Twilight. Enough said.
Well I recently saw the honest trailer for 50 Shades - must say, it looks pretty bad can anyone who's seen it confirm?
In lieu of an answer, I'll direct your attention to the strange misogyny inside the pages and let you decide how bad it is: Fifty Abusive Moments in Fifty Shades of Grey And for anyone who may have read the book I ask this question: When main character talks about her "inner goddess" do you you also picture the Venus of Willendorf?
Oh dear, we better not derail the thread! I see another discussion of "does 50 Shades condone domestic abuse" coming along... but yeah I recognise the link and believe I've read it before. I'm not in doubt as to whether that book gives bad examples of what's attractive on a guy and what relationships should look like. But I just mean whether it was done well as a film
