The Best "Bad" Movies (IMDB ranking below 6.0)
Dgates
Is it too late to get in on this 2003 thread?
I'll change the newsgroup from "current-films" to "past-films," where
the posters are more polite :-)
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:04:42 -0700, Ashley Lambert-Maberly
<ash...@oldadm.ubc.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:23:46 GMT, Mason Barge <mason...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Here's a chance to embarrass yourself, truly and deeply:
>>
>>1) Must have a score under 6.0 on IMdb
>>2) Must be mainstream (widely released)
>>3) You must actually enjoy it as intended, not for camp value -- no
>>"Glen or Glenda" please
This rule #3 is the tough one. What *is* the correct way to enjoy,
say, Barbarella, "as intended?"
For example, when she lets off with a line like "Make love? But no
one's done that for hundreds of centuries!" or "De-crucify him or I'll
melt your face!"
>3. Charlie's Angels (6.0)
>
>Well, *I* liked it, not so much for the action as for the humour. I
>hoped for three things from Charlie's Angels: getting into goofy
>disguises (check), dating the boss/client (like Jaclyn Smith always
>used to), check, and hair flipping (check--in slow-mo, even!)
I loved Charlie's Angels, and I was surprised to see that it has
dipped even a little lower at IMDB -- to 5.9.
What do people EXPECT from a movie called "Charlie's Angels??" How
could it have been any better? :-o
Okay, anyway, I see that my favorite "bad" films fall into a few
categories.
Movies that are deliberately campy/goofy, and yet were fun to watch
beyond the desire to mock. (Cool music, some cool scenes, babes babes
babes, etc.)
Barbarella (1968) 5.6
Danger: Diabolik (1968) 4.9
Flash Gordon (1980) 5.7
In Like Flint (1967) 5.9
Silencers, The (1966) 5.4
Wrecking Crew, The (1969) 5.2
Movies I learned to like as a kid/teen and can't bring myself to
dislike now:
Beyond Atlantis (1973) 3.7!
Fury, The (1978) 6.0
Night of the Comet (1984) 5.8
Rollercoaster (1977) 5.8
A few that I suspect do especially poorly among the internet crowd
that is likely to vote at IMDB:
Armageddon (1998) 5.7
Charlie's Angels (2000) 5.9
Daylight (1996) 5.4
A couple where I'm surprised at the relatively low scores, since I
would probably watch them again now:
Bad Influence (1990) 5.6
Masquerade (1988) 5.8
And a couple that are hard to qualify:
Stendhal Syndrome, The (1996) 5.9
(and yet Tenebre gets a 6.9)
Zardoz (1974) 5.4
PAVELB1
wrote:
>
>Is it too late to get in on this 2003 thread?
>
>I'll change the newsgroup from "current-films" to "past-films," where
>the posters are more polite :-)
>
>
>
>On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:04:42 -0700, Ashley Lambert-Maberly
><ash...@oldadm.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:23:46 GMT, Mason Barge <mason...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a chance to embarrass yourself, truly and deeply:
>>>
>>>1) Must have a score under 6.0 on IMdb
>>>2) Must be mainstream (widely released)
>>>3) You must actually enjoy it as intended, not for camp value -- no
>>>"Glen or Glenda" please
>
A lot of knee-jerk internet voting is to blame. I also enjoyed
Charlies Angels, it was fun and had a lot of energy.
I also agree about Flash Gordon and Night of The Comet.....what's not
to like?
When you're flipping through Movie stations...what are you going to
watch, The Hours or Flash Gordon?...c'mon.
James Neibaur
pav...@earthlink.net wrote on 6/22/04 6:00 PM:
> I also agree about Flash Gordon and Night of The Comet.....what's not
> to like?
I was under the impression Night Of The Comet was supposed to look like a
bad movie -- it was sort of a funny sendup of doom movies. Maybe there are
some who didn't get the joke.
Oh well.
JN
John Harkness
wrote:
Flash Gordon, for its more realistic portrait of lesbians.
John Harkness
Kingo Gondo
"Dgates" <dga...@nospamlinkline.com> wrote in message
news:m2chd01uk1ej6k1oj...@4ax.com...
>
> Is it too late to get in on this 2003 thread?
>
> I'll change the newsgroup from "current-films" to "past-films," where
> the posters are more polite :-)
Fuck you, asshole.
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:04:42 -0700, Ashley Lambert-Maberly
> <ash...@oldadm.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:23:46 GMT, Mason Barge <mason...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Here's a chance to embarrass yourself, truly and deeply:
> >>
> >>1) Must have a score under 6.0 on IMdb
> >>2) Must be mainstream (widely released)
> >>3) You must actually enjoy it as intended, not for camp value -- no
> >>"Glen or Glenda" please
>
> This rule #3 is the tough one. What *is* the correct way to enjoy,
> say, Barbarella, "as intended?"
It's impossible--you could list dozens of such films. Take Drum for example
(it's predecessor, Mandingo, might be argued to the contrary, but I doubt
it); or any number of AIP films--think Black Mama, White Mama. They all do
what they were intended to do, AFAICT. I like all three of them. The
Klansman, on the other hand, clearly went awry (and, it sucks).
Monte Hellman has two or three that might belong on this list--China 9,
Liberty 37 and Ride In The Whirlwind qualify; The Shooting just misses, at
6.1. (Actually, for some reason, there are number of very good films at
6.1--Posse (1975) and Dark Hazard (1934) were two that popped right up).
There are many, many "marginal" 70s film I like--Blume in Love, Busting,
Freebie and the Bean, Welcome to LA, Play It As It Lays, Oklahoma Crude,
Raffety and the Gold Dust Twins--all below 6; some I haven't seen in eons,
perhaps I would hate some of them now. But then I'm a true irrational sucker
for 70s films (think of me as Neibaur displaced 35 years in history), so I
doubt it.
Last Action Hero--5.4; it's 20 or 30 minutes too long, easily, but not that
bad. It might be my choice of films from the past 10 years or so, although
The Cable Guy ranks up there too.
PS: that opening FYA, that was just a joke you realize, right?
Been tense around here lately.
Tranquility Base
Day of the Evil Gun 5.6
Ride in the Whirlwind 5.9
Billy Two Hats 5.4
Goin' South 5.9
The Santa Fe Trail 5.8
Not terribly surprised to find lots of westerns in this category.
"Evil Gun" was one of the better 'Hollywood does spaghetti" flicks, I
thought, with a dash of "The Searchers". Good kooky performance from
Dean Jagger, too. "Billy Two Hats" is no masterpiece, but strangely
watchable. Gregory Peck's Scottish accent is not as off-putting as it
should be, and it's got a cool buffalo gun scene, a secondary bad guy
that likes to carry a tattered parasol, and distinctive scenery (It
was shot in Isreal). As for the low rating for "Ride in the
Whirlwind", I can only wonder WTF?
The Exorcist III 5.5
Jurassic Park III 5.7
Can't help but feel that folks were still taking out their
frustrations of Part II on these 'not nearly as good as the original
but waaaaaay better than the last installment' sequels
Serpent and the Rainbow 5.9
I have to think a lot of Wes Craven and/or zombie movie fans came into
this one with the wrong idea.
The End 5.9
Similarly, this movie came out right in the middle of Burt Reynolds
series of wreck-em-ups with Hal Needham and I'd wager those fans were
not quite ready for a comedy about suicide.
The Gumball Rally 5.5
Raul Julia's best work
The Lonely Guy 5.9
Has some flat spots, but Charles Grodin steals this movie.
Deep Blue Sea 5.6
It's silly, and the CGI sharks do look pretty bad, but it's
unpredictable, has two standout scenes involving Samuel L Jackson and
Saffron Burrows, and has a cool looking underwater lab complex if
you're into that kinda thing.
Extreme Prejudice 5.7
Iceman 5.9
Johnny Handsome 5.6
The Last Run 5.2
Throw Momma From the Train 5.9
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
Dgates
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:35:37 -0700, Dgates <dga...@nospamlinkline.com>
I'm with you there! This happens all the time with Netflix!
If I rent The Sand Pebbles and Death Race 2000, guess which one is
gonna get watched immediately and which will sit on a shelf for a
week! :-)
It's a lot more commitment to start watching a "good" movie!
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
Dgates
<tba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The Exorcist III 5.5
I enjoyed that when I saw it. Must not have been very memorable
though.
>Jurassic Park III 5.7
I feel like I rented this one from Netflix just to watch it with the
audio commentary on. Can't remember if I ever saw it straight. My
favorite combo when I suspect I'm gonna get "bad dialogue, good FX,"
is to replace it with "interesting commentary, good FX."
I find that, as a general rule, people capable of making just about
*any* film are more intellegent than the characters they create.
>Deep Blue Sea 5.6
>
>It's silly, and the CGI sharks do look pretty bad, but it's
>unpredictable, has two standout scenes involving Samuel L Jackson and
>Saffron Burrows, and has a cool looking underwater lab complex if
>you're into that kinda thing.
This one was lots of fun. But, as someone else has said, so was
"Black Mama, White Mama!" (4.6 at IMDB)
>Iceman 5.9
I liked this one a lot. I still do an Iceman impersonation when I'm
trying to convince someone to eat something. (that gesture Iceman
does when he's sure that the scientist doesn't understand that you
have to put the food in your mouth and then it goes to your stomach
and makes you happy! :-)
>Johnny Handsome 5.6
Halfway through watching this on video, I phoned a friend to say, "I
can't believe you didn't like this! I just found myself with a tear
in my eye!"
She cautioned me to wait till the end before delivering my final
verdict... and, well, "5.6" sounds about right! :-)
>Throw Momma From the Train 5.9
Look! Cows! LOL!
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
Apteryx
>
> I'll change the newsgroup from "current-films" to "past-films," where
> the posters are more polite :-)
>
>
>
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:04:42 -0700, Ashley Lambert-Maberly
> <ash...@oldadm.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:23:46 GMT, Mason Barge <mason...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Here's a chance to embarrass yourself, truly and deeply:
> >>
> >>1) Must have a score under 6.0 on IMdb
> >>2) Must be mainstream (widely released)
> >>3) You must actually enjoy it as intended, not for camp value -- no
> >>"Glen or Glenda" please
Not that I am nominating it myself, but I note in passing that at least
one of the films on the NY Times "1000 Best Movies Ever" qualifies,
namely "10" (1979). That was certainly mainstream, its 10 has been
devalued to 5.7 on IMdb, and I enjoyed perving Bo Derek, as I think was
intended. But I'll leave it to the NY Times to argue that it really is
one of the Best "Bad" Movies.
--
Apteryx
Treat anger like gold. Spend it wisely or not at all.
Dgates
<a.m...@deletethistoreply.xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>"Dgates" <dga...@nospamlinkline.com> wrote in message
>news:m2chd01uk1ej6k1oj...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Is it too late to get in on this 2003 thread?
>>
>> I'll change the newsgroup from "current-films" to "past-films," where
>> the posters are more polite :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:04:42 -0700, Ashley Lambert-Maberly
>> <ash...@oldadm.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:23:46 GMT, Mason Barge <mason...@aol.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Here's a chance to embarrass yourself, truly and deeply:
>> >>
>> >>1) Must have a score under 6.0 on IMdb
>> >>2) Must be mainstream (widely released)
>> >>3) You must actually enjoy it as intended, not for camp value -- no
>> >>"Glen or Glenda" please
>
>Not that I am nominating it myself, but I note in passing that at least
>one of the films on the NY Times "1000 Best Movies Ever" qualifies,
>namely "10" (1979). That was certainly mainstream, its 10 has been
>devalued to 5.7 on IMdb...
That's an interesting bit of cross-checking for someone to do! How
many of the NY Times "Top 1000" are below, well, I guess we're going
with "6.0" as the cutoff here.
Personally, I think 6.0 might be a little high for the cutoff between
"good" and "bad," but when I tried searching for ten movies I enjoyed
below, say, 5.0, then I was *really* getting into camp territory --
"Mitchell," "Black Mama, White Mama," etc.
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com