Oceania Worst Movie of All Time

Awesome make up and effects on Ron Pearlmen tho! and the WW2 stuff at the start was great!

 

Well...I saw Hellboy and didn't like it either. The only character that I kinda liked was that aquatic alien, but that was about it. The special effects were interesting, the plot line not-too-mentionable and when it was there, highly predictable...the characters were cliche...

And being really interested in history, particularly the WWII period...I didn't like it.

But each to their own, I guess. I too like my fair share of films nobody else would tolerate...

 

Hellboy was great if you knew Mignola's comic, otherwise it just didn't click. I wanted to see Lobster Johnson... Hee hee hee, "johnson."

E_S

 

Is second that Ender. Neither the comic or the film takes themselves too seriously. And it's kooky and dark. Like if The X Files starred superheroes!

 

Yeah, alright, I can understand that perhaps viewers need a bit of the aforementioned understanding to completely 'get' the film. But...it still doesn't necessarily make for a good film. I'm not arguing here, I'm just saying how I see things. I wouldn't know if it's a good adaption or not, it just didn't interest me. I found the film predictable and corny, which is not necessarily my style...

 

I liked the quirkyness of the film. My favourite moment is proberly when Hellboy is having Milk and Cookies with that kid, on the roof! Theres just something funny about that scene.

I wasn't fond of the whole '7 gods of chaos' thing, but I liked the talking Corpse!

 

When he threw the rock at Meyers? Yeah, that was great.

E_S

 

I loved Ivan. "go that way, red monkey!"
"If I had legs, Id kick your ass!"

 

I still say it was pretty bad, films should be self contained, not requiring outside material for the audience to "get" it.

 

I agree with Sith on this one. If it's an adaption, then that's fine, but it should concurrently have a vague sense of generality to be enjoyed by all those audience members who aren't quite up to date with the material it's based on.

But what of Sin City? Does the same thing apply?

 

Sin City sucked regardless.

 

Nope, Sin City was awesome whether you knew the material or not. Knowing the material just added to the overall effect of the film. Sure you knew how it would end, but you could see the effort the filmmakers went to, to cleverly follow and mimic the comic onto the big screen. I giggled and gawked many times throught that film at how close everything was to the comic. Brilliant. But from a non biased perspective, Not knowing the material for the film, would be exactly the same as the first time reading the comic. You get the exact same effect, minus a few little dialogues they changed for the film. So, nope, Sin City you can see and enjoy or dislike, knowing that your reasons for doing such dont extend beyond the film.

 

Some more iconic films of the 90s...

Jurassic Park - 1993 (For it's undeniable impact on the direction of popular cinema.)
The Shawshank Redemption - 1994 (For being the best drama of the decade.)
The Usual Suspects - 1995 (For messing with truth, despite the fact that I found it boring.)
Titanic - 1997 (For proving, despite its sinkable banality, that history is written by popular fiction - a reality that historians have been resisting for years.)
The Thin Red Line - 1998 (For putting aesthetic theory into practice and finally showing real characters in war.)
American Beauty - 1999 (For having a go at society and commenting, reasonably intelligently, on beauty - despite the fact that I dislike the film.)
The Sixth Sense - 1999 (For reawakening the thriller genre, paying homage to film as art and providing a single brilliant line to describe what cinema, as an art form, actually does.)

 

The Thin Red Line was intensely bloated on all the "oh look, beauty" imagery. I can't think of a soldier I know who thinks it's accurate - but they are of the Black Hawk Down age of warfare.

Sin City most certainly, did not suck. It was a remarkably mature film from Rodriguez, whose last effort, "Once Upon A Time In Mexico", was craptacular.

Hellboy, I would say, was a project for Del Toro, rather than a film for themasses. He made it for Hellboy fans and in North America it was exceptionally well recieved. Cue SM making generalisations about Americans here:

However, the case could be made that the Passion of the Christ was entirely self-contained; yet the message should have been clear to anyone who watched the film. So I disagree with the notion that a film should be self-contained, unless we want mindless entertainment the order du jour. After all, ROTS was enhanced by the novel, since it made Anakin far less the annoying girly boy you saw on screen crying all the time.

E_S

 

so if a movie should be self contained, then how are you supposed to enjoy films like Finding Neverland, and Shakespeare in love, or even Mars Attacks or Ed Wood????

These films are more enjoyable if you have some footing first, and theres no problem asking an audience to have some general knowledge about the subject of a film before going to see it. Especially if an audience member goes in wanting to like the film.

 

Cue SM making generalisations about Americans here:

Americans are all called Lenny or Carl, Lenny if they're white, Carl if they're black.



Look, obviously you need to know some things going into a film, obviously they can't be entirely self contained, a knowledge of such things as the language the film is in is often a help, and with films like Saving Private Ryan, or Thin Red Line, some familiarity with the fact World War 2 happened is always a plus.

I just mean you shouldn't have had to read a specific book, novel or comic, in order to "get" a film. If the director and writer are any good at their job, they should be able to entertain the uninformed audience, and keep the fans entertained at the same time. A good example of this would be the Serenity movie.

 

I thoroughly enjoy watching The Thin Red Line, as I believe - as an adaption - it can stand alone from James Jones' novel. If you've read the novel, it's a plus because you can examine how Mallick (sp?) has drawn links between it and the film, but it's not compulsory to have read the book for it to be enjoyed. The cinematography is brilliant, I feel, as it draws a blatant contrast between the horrors of warfare, and the beauty of nature.
And as for whether or not actual soldiers focus on the 'nature' (or whatever), Jones actually states something interesting in the novels conclusion. He says that no matter how the novel is written, or the story is told, someone will always see the events differently.

 

I suppose SM, It's probably a case of: If you didn't like the comic, you probably won't like the movie.

The idea is very kooky- a similar style movie I just saw: BUBBA HO-TEP.

Bruce Campbell is incredible, I mean that movie is hilarious and with such an insane angle. His performance was cool, because he would complain like a grumpy old man convincingly, whilst still sounding like an Elvis Presley caricature!!!!

 

I suppose SM, It's probably a case of: If you didn't like the comic, you probably won't like the movie.

That's not the point I'm making though.

 

Oh stop sulking!

E_S

 

I was disappointed by Bubba Ho-Tep.

The characterisation, like Johnnage said, was quite brilliant.

Pity about the plot though. It attempted to take its time to be poignant and thoughtful, but just came off as incredibly boring.
Please note, I like my art-house, independant and foreign flicks and I'm not saying it was boring because it lacked big explosions and special effects, et cetera. It takes a lot for me to get bored with a film.

 

That film took two hours of my life and I want them back!

Eh, I'd just squander them anyway....

 

Deto has already defended 'The Thin Red Line' quite well, so I'll join the debate about self-containment instead.

My thoughts on this are twofold:

Firstly, one has to remember that walking into a film that adapts some prior series/work is entirely different from walking into an original film. Before anyone starts arguing this point, hear me out. All films draw on existing knowledge, as S_M has pointed out. However, where original films drawn on general knowledge (such as in the example of Saving Private Ryan), adaptations draw on specific knowledge. Thus, this debate is really about how much specific knowledge is required (not useful), to understand/enjoy a film.

Secondly, when it comes to intertextuality, quality is directly proportional to subtlety. Prior work should be used to enhance, not constitute, a current film. Thus, while an understanding of the series, for example, may end up being helpful to grasp the many nuances of a film, such information should not be mandatory for the plot (to pick something at random...) to make sense. This brings to mind an old adage of narrative - show don't tell.

 

That's true; if you didn't have prior knowledge of WWII you'd think it was only America versus the Nazis. Or, for example, you might be tricked into thinking Oskar Schindler wa sa good man from seeing Schindler's List.

E_S

 

Couldn't have said it better, Sai. That's probably the point I was building up to.