Oceania Worst Movie of All Time

Where do I get it?

Imagine, if you will, my first year of Uni. Arts/Law. Because there's not enough first year PoliSci subjects I elect to take cultural studies thinking it could be interesting and maybe fun.

It would be more interesting and fun to wrench my testicles from my body using a pair of tweezers than ever again sit through such pseudo-Marxist, post-modernist crap again.

Seriously. It's like what I imagine prison sex would be like - painful, unnatural, and you're bound to end up contracting a life threatening illness as a result.

I mean, it's not only one of those subjects that's run by two cardboard cutout cliches of the genre - a big mincing poofburger wearing purple all the time, and a fascistic man hating lesbian - it tried to claim intellectual credibility by suggesting a plethora of meanings in traffics lights. And no, I don't mean stop, slow, go - I mean, they thought it actually meant stuff. It used lots of big and impressive post-modernist terms like "transcending the boundaries imposed by the rigid dogma of conventional wisdom" and "problematic", it argued in favour of Marxism, and took the post-modernist doctrine of all that was previously good is bad and vice versa and tried to pass it off as education. Were I Vice-Chancellor of the University I'd fire the lecturers, disband the course and then slander their entire existence to any media outlet I could.

Seriously, there is nothing more disgusting than pretending to educate people; hence my unrestrained antipathy cultural studies and it's advocates. And if you can't get a job teaching Cultural Studies to a new generation of lambs, I'm sure there's room to replace Megan Spencer on Triple J as she's ostenibly born of that pariah discipline too and it's what the J wants.

E_S

 

aahhh Megan Spencer's alright. Movies to her aren't really like the Emperor's New Clothes.

If you pretend theres value to it, everyone who's scared of sounding stupid will agree with you.

But if you rally have to dig deep and find value in a movie, then it's not a good movie.

 

Sure, Megan Spencer is alright and Hitler and Stalin were just misunderstood and Usama bin Laden is a philanthopist.



E_S

 

lol, very amusing summary of Cultural Studies.

Anyway, I'm a philosophy major (who had an unfortunate experience with Cultural Studies once), so I'm afraid the following opinion is immune to your artful CS blasting. Also, since we're on the subject of film theory (again!), I should probably first ground my comments in some sort of conceptual framework.

One of the necessary conditions for being human is embodiment. Thus, our reaction to art (of which cinema is probably the most modern example) must be understood within the context of sensuous perception. When we see Obi-Wan agonising over the dismembered figure of Anakin, to use a mutual example, we are involved in the scene - not because of its intellectual stimulation, but because we feel it. All this pain, betrayal, and shattered hope provokes a very bodily reaction.

Descending from this exemplary film to Kubrick's horrible version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, one finds that there is something very wrong here with the portrayal of humans as embodied creatures. Sure, there are the obvious examples of spartan characterisation, bizarre (and contradictory) evolutionary/dualist themes, and the rather annoying computer/human simulation stuff, but beyond this, Kubrick has fundamentally misunderstood cinema as an embodied art form.

Towards the end of the film we are presented with an optically irritating display of colour experimentation, which is also watched, with growing horror, by the film's protagonist. This continues further and further into an intellectual exercise (both for the character Bowman and the film's viewers) until we arrive at a sterile hallucination of pure thought masquerading as God / Cosmic Humour. This is not cinema, it's philosophy (and bad philosophy at that). A film of nothing but disembodied musings on what it means to be human. This entirely forgets the one thing that is uniquely human - feeling. So all we have is film about humanity without any humans. Like they say - genius.

But in all this, the thing that ended up pissing me off the most was that the film ruined an otherwise completely good soundtrack.

 

well there you go...

 

A slow passage of time can successfully be conveyed, without actually making a slow film. I recognise what Kubrick is trying to achieve with his method. However, as an audience member, I find "2001", tedious viewing at times. Again, it is by no means even a bad film, just slow.

 

indeedy. Thanks chief.

2001 isn't bad, its just not very entertaining- and anyone who claims to find it thought provoking 9 times out of 10 is probably saying that so they don't look stupid...

 

The book was thought provoking - I like the film because of some of the visualisations that were done. I mean, Bowman walking laps around in the inside of the ship still looks cool.

E_S

 

yeah theres a lot of classic moments and scenes that are iconic now, but it is strange for a movie that isn't that widely accepted by audiences.

If you look at the next movie which has the most memorable and classic iconic moments, it's probably E.T the extra terrestrial, which was a smash hit with audiences and critics. (And an awesome powerful movie!) But the difference is that E.T is more widely accessable when you look at it. Kids and adults of all kinds can relate to it because everyone has had a childhood, happy or not.

 

I never had a childhood. I was born 19.

And I grew up in South Africa...so I never had a childhood...

 

I'm sure. The Mearth complex. You'll have a childhood eventually D_R!

 

Regarding Die Another Day, in the start of the movie James and his Spy Buddies(TM) came to their mission on SURFBOARDS. WT*!?. What the hell was Q thinking!?

 

yes. XTREME!!!!

I hate all that crap like xXx and Stealth and Fast and the Furious and Blue Crush and Deck Dogz and (babbles endlessly!)

 

Aww, I really wanted E_S to have a go at my argument (the entertainment value alone would have been worth it).

Anyway, in terms of iconic films, it would go something like: 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars, Alien, ESB, Indiana Jones, E.T., Blade Runner, Terminator, and then on into the 90s (can't think of anything special between 84 and 89).

 

T2: judgement day!

 

That's '91 dude.

 

you're right. Hmmmm what about empire of the sun?

 

I haven't actually seen that, but it appears plausible.

 

Back to the Future! (1985)

 

Of course. I forgot about that.

It would be an interesting task to list all iconic films from '90 to '99.

 

Tha Matrix...that is all.

Actually, I don't even know if that's the right time frame...

 

well judging by the list to choose from at the beginning. I can't really choose because i have only seen one of them, being Grease.
And from what I've heard it is a good thing i have not seen Legally Blonde 2.

 

Saw Hellboy for the first time last night, it gets an honourable mention for not really having a plot.

 

Or believable slime...

 

The 90's were to me, chock-full of iconic films.
Here are some of my favourites, those that I can recall anyway...

Resevoir Dogs '92, Pulp Fiction '94, La Femme Nikita '90, The Professional '94, The Fifth Element '97, Clerks '94, Mallrats '95, Reality Bites '94, The Cable Guy '96, Ace Ventura Pet Detective '94, Trainspotting '96, Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels '98, Seven '95, Twelve Monkeys '95, Fight Club '99, The Usual Suspects '95, Being John Malcovich '99 and The Matrix '99.