So, what is it? I just saw a horrible one last noght, I almost throw up, it was that bad. The actress in the lead role was ugly as hell, and the whole thing was like a big puddle of mud. BTW the title was Call Girl
Speaking of LOTR, I got very frustrated watching the third part, especially when that chick killed the supposedly-tough Witch King. A lot of the stuff were lame in the third part, but that one part irritated the hell out of me.
And not to mention how hobbits are successfully killing orcs.
Here's a few more problems of The Return Of The King:
The orcs in ROTK aren't anywhere near as threatening as the Uruk-Hai in The Two Towers, which results in Sauron's forces looking inadequate.
Denethor's suicide made no sense. The guy had to run half a mile while on fire to throw himself down the edge of the cliff. How'd he manage that?
All the suspense built by showing how the allience is desperately outnumbered is dissolved with the appearance of a pythonesque UNBEATABLE ARMY OF GHOSTS!*
This also makes the sacrifice of Rohan pretty much meaningless. What did Theoden die for, when the good guys had an UNBEATABLE ARMY OF GHOSTS!
The conflict between Frodo and Sam is contrived. Gollum tells Frodo that Sam will ask for the ring and in the next scene, Sam does ask for it. Schizophrenic =/= mind reader.
Gollum's disappearances and reappearances at the end became almost comical. Guess who's back? The guy that you should have finished three times already!
Aragorn's noticable aging at the end disturbed me a lot.
* - Those of you who defend the Army of the dead by saying it was in the book, remember that in the book they never came to gondor. They helped take over the pirate ships (via fear not by actually fighting) and it was all done with a bit of class. It didn't help the film that Curse of the black pearl came out the same year and had pretty much the same kind of ghosts, but whatever.
I found ROTK and TTT to be disappointing, but OK. I'd even give The Two Towers the edge, because I loved the ents and Rohan. I really adore Fellowship, because of the character driven scenes, great scenery, awesome soundtrack and the overall darkness.
Aaw now the medieval geek in me is angry yes the LOTR franchise could've been done way better in the movies then it turned out to be but it's far from deserving a spot on the Worst Movie Ever list.
LOL. LOTR was only ever brought up because it was on my list of favorites and I said some negative things about a couple of films that these guys like. Even though I never said that they are dumb for liking the films or that my favorite films are good. Take care!
Written by [user id=105293] on 20.07.2010 at 07:27
Written by [user id=4365] on 18.07.2010 at 12:32
Lol, I just remembered the biggest plot hole of all time. It involves Lord of the Rings and flying creatures. I think it's pretty obvious what I'm talking about. I bet a certain individual chose to ignore the plot contrivances of that one.
I simply refer you to this:
www.sean-crist.com/personal/pages/eagles/index.html
Looks like mister plot-hole will have to find a new favourite franchise. Ooh, I'm such a bitch!
Supposing for a moment, that I agree with the eagles carrying the ring (and this has been done to death by fans and nonfans alike on IMDB), it would be something the filmmakers can not do anything about. If it is a problem, then it is a problem of the book, not of the film.
As to the actual debate. It is true that neither the books nor the films rule out the possibility of using eagles, but both insist upon secrecy. Big eagles in the sky vs small hobbits with elven cloaks. Take your pick.
"You're not a bitch. You're bitching, but you're not a bitch."
So by your own set of rules at least the book should have been rendered totally unreadable, despite being the first mentioned amongst your favourites. Surely such a gaping plot hole would have plagued that backward mind of yours throughout its 1000 or so pages. And yeah, your suggestion of "secrecy" is bafflingly illogical, see the list again. Selective reasoning, not the sign of moderately intelligent individual in my opinion.
"I dont know where you get your delusions, lazer brain."
Written by [user id=105293] on 20.07.2010 at 07:44
Here's a few more problems of The Return Of The King:
The orcs in ROTK aren't anywhere near as threatening as the Uruk-Hai in The Two Towers, which results in Sauron's forces looking inadequate.
Denethor's suicide made no sense. The guy had to run half a mile while on fire to throw himself down the edge of the cliff. How'd he manage that?
All the suspense built by showing how the allience is desperately outnumbered is dissolved with the appearance of a pythonesque UNBEATABLE ARMY OF GHOSTS!*
This also makes the sacrifice of Rohan pretty much meaningless. What did Theoden die for, when the good guys had an UNBEATABLE ARMY OF GHOSTS!
The conflict between Frodo and Sam is contrived. Gollum tells Frodo that Sam will ask for the ring and in the next scene, Sam does ask for it. Schizophrenic =/= mind reader.
Gollum's disappearances and reappearances at the end became almost comical. Guess who's back? The guy that you should have finished three times already!
Aragorn's noticable aging at the end disturbed me a lot.
* - Those of you who defend the Army of the dead by saying it was in the book, remember that in the book they never came to gondor. They helped take over the pirate ships (via fear not by actually fighting) and it was all done with a bit of class. It didn't help the film that Curse of the black pearl came out the same year and had pretty much the same kind of ghosts, but whatever.
I found ROTK and TTT to be disappointing, but OK. I'd even give The Two Towers the edge, because I loved the ents and Rohan. I really adore Fellowship, because of the character driven scenes, great scenery, awesome soundtrack and the overall darkness.
Over and out.
If anything, I agree about the ghost army, they really screwed it with that part.
The ending of the film is one of the lamest most tearjerking scenes I have ever come across. PLus Sam gets gayer and gayer for Frodo during this thrid part as well.
Of LotR the only truly enjoyable part both on film and in writing for me is The Fellowship Of The Ring.
Any better suggestions for a perhaps more kick-arse ending?
And what is wrong with people thinking so awkward nowadays... The hobbits didn't make out nor anything worse neither in the book nor film, did they?
Speaking of LOTR, I got very frustrated watching the third part, especially when that chick killed the supposedly-tough Witch King. A lot of the stuff were lame in the third part, but that one part irritated the hell out of me.
And not to mention how hobbits are successfully killing orcs.
in regards to the Witch King. He was supposedly tough. he was supposedly invulnerable to living man. and thus the cleverness of that scene. it's overconfidence on his part that he can defeat anything in his path, so he pretty much toys with her. but the glitch is his foe is not a man, but a woman... and a woman who, as has been established, is not at all unfamiliar with combat. this wrinkle thus renders the prophecy a mute point. on one hand an overconfident foe, and in the other an emotionally charged, trained woman fighting to protect her kin and king. it's not a man that strikes the blow, but a woman. hubris. sorry if that subtlety is lost on you.
as for "hobbits killing orcs" - in the chaos of battle, it's not unreasonable to think any grunt as capable of killing another grunt. it also stands to reason that over the course of their travels and travails the hobbits grow as individuals and learn from experienced warriors like Boromir, Aragorn, etc, how to handle themselves. and apparently you also carry the assumption that orcs are bad-ass when they're pretty much a horde of grunts and not particularly awesome combatants. they overwhelm their foes with fear and number, not necessarily skill. (see also the Riders absolutely routing the other orcs they come across in Two Towers... trained, skilled warriors absolutely shredded them.)
the scourging of the Shire, which did not make the film, features on the hobbits return to the Shire to find it overrun by thugs... the four returning hobbits show the depth of their growth by marshaling the local hobbits to their side and leading them to victory in driving the bandits out.
they left the Shire as four bumbling, naive hobbits. and return as world-traveled and experienced adventurers.
that's part of what literature does... the characters should experience emotional growth. that's part of the reason that these movies were so good (Marcel's opinion aside), particularly compared to the other fantasy schlock movies which get made... the ones that think somehow the magic is in the special effects. it's not. it's in the characters.
in regards to the Witch King. He was supposedly tough. he was supposedly invulnerable to living man. and thus the cleverness of that scene. it's overconfidence on his part that he can defeat anything in his path, so he pretty much toys with her. but the glitch is his foe is not a man, but a woman... and a woman who, as has been established, is not at all unfamiliar with combat. this wrinkle thus renders the prophecy a mute point. on one hand an overconfident foe, and in the other an emotionally charged, trained woman fighting to protect her kin and king. it's not a man that strikes the blow, but a woman. hubris. sorry if that subtlety is lost on you.
as for "hobbits killing orcs" - in the chaos of battle, it's not unreasonable to think any grunt as capable of killing another grunt. it also stands to reason that over the course of their travels and travails the hobbits grow as individuals and learn from experienced warriors like Boromir, Aragorn, etc, how to handle themselves. and apparently you also carry the assumption that orcs are bad-ass when they're pretty much a horde of grunts and not particularly awesome combatants. they overwhelm their foes with fear and number, not necessarily skill. (see also the Riders absolutely routing the other orcs they come across in Two Towers... trained, skilled warriors absolutely shredded them.)
the scourging of the Shire, which did not make the film, features on the hobbits return to the Shire to find it overrun by thugs... the four returning hobbits show the depth of their growth by marshaling the local hobbits to their side and leading them to victory in driving the bandits out.
they left the Shire as four bumbling, naive hobbits. and return as world-traveled and experienced adventurers.
that's part of what literature does... the characters should experience emotional growth. that's part of the reason that these movies were so good (Marcel's opinion aside), particularly compared to the other fantasy schlock movies which get made... the ones that think somehow the magic is in the special effects. it's not. it's in the characters.
OK, so you're basically trying to reason all the missing parts of the puzzle. And that's alright. Sometimes fantasy is just that, a fantasy.
First, for the Witch King, they basically built that character throughout the trilogy as a fearless, merciless and very frightening warrior(s), one who gave Aragorn a lot of trouble. However the women seen in the movie, while portrayed as sort of a fighter, was not portrayed nearly a warrior enough to take such frightening foe all by herself (if my memory serves me, she stabbed him in the face while she was lying down, and something like that), and it happened conveniently enough, in the final battle of the series.
I agree about Orcs. Basically you have two types of Orcs in fantasy; Tolkien Orcs; aka mindless swarming brutes who are easily scourged by any more trained warrior, and so-called 'Blizzard Orcs' (they may not be the first to utilize such, but they popularized it), your typical hulking, two and a half meters tall greenskined monster, with fearful battle prowess. I can understand how the hobbits grew in experience and courage enough to take down a few Orcs (if we ignore the fact that, while they're pretty useless warriors, they still outdo hobbits in size and physical strength), but I do not see them alive after battle is over, especially if partaking an important role in it. And I don't think that the amount of time from which they left Shire as a hopeless youngsters, to arrive as a full-fledged warriors is appropriate (though I could be wrong, truthfully, I don't remember which span of time is it).
And finally, I agree about the growth of characters. Any good work of fiction should have one, literature, movies or tv shows.
Any better suggestions for a perhaps more kick-arse ending?
What people fail to realize, is that Frodo leaving Middle-Earth was the climax of the film. It was never Aragorn's story, it was Frodo's. The ending is so good that I was almost able to forgive the film for the stupid ghost army
Quote: And what is wrong with people thinking so awkward nowadays... The hobbits didn't make out nor anything worse neither in the book nor film, did they?
As a friend of mine once said: the gay joke is god's gift to the unffunny.
So by your own set of rules at least the book should have been rendered totally unreadable, despite being the first mentioned amongst your favourites.
What set of rules? When did I call Alien totally unwatchable? The category is called favorite books, not books that you believe are flawless.
Quote: Surely such a gaping plot hole would have plagued that backward mind of yours throughout its 1000 or so pages.
Plot holes are human error, plot contrivances are lazy writing. The first is forgivable, the second is not. Alien not killing Ripley when it has the chance is no plot hole, it's contrivance. Even great films have plot holes. Who was there to hear Kane say: "Rosebud"? What did the dead people in The Sixth Sense think when taxies didn't stop for them, when no one would serve them at restaurants, when no one would pay any attention to them at all?
Quote: And yeah, your suggestion of "secrecy" is bafflingly illogical, see the list again.
A few reasons why Sean's plan wouldn't be chosen.
Saruman's spies moved around Rivendell and the Misty Mountains and found the fellowship very soon after their departure. Gandalf's meeting with Gwaihir would likely have been found out about, Saruman was already aware of Gwaihir aiding Gandalf once, it's more than possible that he had the eagles under surveillance. Two+two = game over.
Suppose that didn't happen and Gandalf's meeting went unnoticed. The entire case for flying eagles into Mordor would have relied on hoping against hope that they'd make it to Mt Doom with Frodo and the ring. Sean argues that we don't know whether Sauron's forces would have been able to stop them. The probelm is: neither did they. There could have been a hundred fellbeast flying about for all they knew.
Not to mention, the idea of a randevouz with giant eagles is asking to be noticed before they'd even enter Mordor.
Sean's argument proves that eagles could have flown Frodo to Mt doom, it does nothing to prove that such a course of action would have been better than the one the council decided to go with. Darn, it's such a great book. In fact, I am gonna go read it!
I checked this out of pure curiosity and since I've never actually seen any particularly horrible movies prior to this (that I can recall, at least), I decided to get my hands on "The Room". It left me speechless in a way that no movie has ever done before. The plot holes, horrific script, the fact that nothing makes sense and that everything is out of place made it a very "interesting" experience indeed. The fact that the cast keeps a straight face through the ridiculous dialogue is also a mystery to me.
I checked this out of pure curiosity and since I've never actually seen any particularly horrible movies prior to this (that I can recall, at least), I decided to get my hands on "The Room". It left me speechless in a way that no movie has ever done before. The plot holes, horrific script, the fact that nothing makes sense and that everything is out of place made it a very "interesting" experience indeed. The fact that the cast keeps a straight face through the ridiculous dialogue is also a mystery to me.
There will never be a movie worse/greater than The Room...
Stealth. It's like a more braindead version of Top Gun, only with crappy CGI and lots of really blatant cliches (black guy dies, supposedly strong woman needs rescuing, etc.). If it's not the worst, it's definitely up (down?) there. Torque and Resident Evil: Apocalypse also come to mind.
The Timemachine, first of all when i sxtarted watching it i was already pissed of because i din't have any milk for my kraft dinner, but thats was the least of my problems, the terrible plot the shitty characters, arrgh it was the worst movie EVER!!!
I really can't pick which Ashton Kutcher film I hate more, so with the exception of The Butterfly Effect (Whick was actually sort of semi not shit (For and ashton kutcher film anyway)) I'm just going to say all of them.
----
When God made up the golden rule, do you think he noticed that it condones rape?
I checked this out of pure curiosity and since I've never actually seen any particularly horrible movies prior to this (that I can recall, at least), I decided to get my hands on "The Room". It left me speechless in a way that no movie has ever done before. The plot holes, horrific script, the fact that nothing makes sense and that everything is out of place made it a very "interesting" experience indeed. The fact that the cast keeps a straight face through the ridiculous dialogue is also a mystery to me.
There will never be a movie worse/greater than The Room...
As long you discuss why the Lord of The Rings movies are so bad, ( I have to agree that some things make no sense, such the elven army at the Helm's Deep, and almost everything in that movie), but hey, at least I had some fun watching it.
But the worst films ever are all the romance films, so catchy and full of good feelings
I like epic movies, with killing, blood spilling and great armys and all of that things
----
Carry me to the shoreline
Bury me in the sand
Walk me across the water
And maybe you'll understand
Written by [user id=105293] on 20.07.2010 at 07:44
Here's a few more problems of The Return Of The King:
The orcs in ROTK aren't anywhere near as threatening as the Uruk-Hai in The Two Towers, which results in Sauron's forces looking inadequate.
Denethor's suicide made no sense. The guy had to run half a mile while on fire to throw himself down the edge of the cliff. How'd he manage that?
All the suspense built by showing how the allience is desperately outnumbered is dissolved with the appearance of a pythonesque UNBEATABLE ARMY OF GHOSTS!*
This also makes the sacrifice of Rohan pretty much meaningless. What did Theoden die for, when the good guys had an UNBEATABLE ARMY OF GHOSTS!
The conflict between Frodo and Sam is contrived. Gollum tells Frodo that Sam will ask for the ring and in the next scene, Sam does ask for it. Schizophrenic =/= mind reader.
Gollum's disappearances and reappearances at the end became almost comical. Guess who's back? The guy that you should have finished three times already!
Aragorn's noticable aging at the end disturbed me a lot.
* - Those of you who defend the Army of the dead by saying it was in the book, remember that in the book they never came to gondor. They helped take over the pirate ships (via fear not by actually fighting) and it was all done with a bit of class. It didn't help the film that Curse of the black pearl came out the same year and had pretty much the same kind of ghosts, but whatever.
I found ROTK and TTT to be disappointing, but OK. I'd even give The Two Towers the edge, because I loved the ents and Rohan. I really adore Fellowship, because of the character driven scenes, great scenery, awesome soundtrack and the overall darkness.
Over and out.
If anything, I agree about the ghost army, they really screwed it with that part.
What about the elvish army arriving in Helm's Deep in the Two Towers?
Elven have never went to that place... And why did Haldir had to die?
The epic battle was nice afterall. I just missed the Uorns.
----
Carry me to the shoreline
Bury me in the sand
Walk me across the water
And maybe you'll understand
The worst movies ever seen by me is Teeth.It's cataloged as horror,although it isn't...well for you who have nightmares of a carnivorous vagina it may be.
Teeth is a decent movie, to say the least. Why on earth would anyone take this to be the worst movie ever unless you have seen only masterpieces? It was funny, a bit disgusting and played quite subtly with man's "greatest fear". Considering its modest goals, this film was a complete success.
Uhm,read the name of the thread,it says worst movie seen,I didn't say it was the worst that existed,but it was just stupid imo.And although it achieved it's goals,which were modest,it still doesn't change the fact that it's down right stupid to make a horror movie about a carnivorous vagina.
Bad 90s sci-fi (let it be known that I love GOOD 90s sci-fi). Sphere started out with a bit of promise and the plunged into cliches, a story that didn't get developed in any decent way, cheap shots at "scary," predictable moments followed by stupid twists, and uninspired acting that couldn't overcome any of this. It really did start off with a decent "mystery" for the cliche gang to solve, so that made the let down all the worse when it ended up sucking SO SO SO BADLY.
----
"A life all mine
Is what I choose
At the end of my days" --The Gathering "A Life All Mine" from Souvenirs
Bad 90s sci-fi (let it be known that I love GOOD 90s sci-fi). Sphere started out with a bit of promise and the plunged into cliches, a story that didn't get developed in any decent way, cheap shots at "scary," predictable moments followed by stupid twists, and uninspired acting that couldn't overcome any of this. It really did start off with a decent "mystery" for the cliche gang to solve, so that made the let down all the worse when it ended up sucking SO SO SO BADLY.
Haha, I really like Sphere =P Possibly my ultimate guilty pleasure. Although come to think of it White Noise probably holds that particular trophy.
Really? I've heard from everyone who's seen it that it's pretty impressive.
Enter the Void starts off all right but after quite intense 30 minutes turns into overindulgent and sentimental borefest. It's certainly not in my list of worst movies, I guess I don't even have a list, but it's a huge drawback from L'Irreversible which was quite amazing. One thing to commend Noé, though, the carcrash scene was almost too painful to watch.
I stick with Buttcrack as the worst movie I've seen.
Take care!
