A Renaissance of Bad Films

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Sean O'Hara

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 4:20:09 PM7/31/03
to
No, this isn't a Rander-style troll about how movies suck nowadays.
Percentage-wise, there are no more bad movies today than in the
past, however it does seem that the quality of these films is
increasing (er, decreasing) to the point that bad movies are
becoming an art form. Consider:

2000 - Battlefield Earth, one of the few films, along with Plan 9
and Manos, that a person can describe as "the worst film I've
ever seen" without hyperbole. Set new standards for bad film-making.

2001 - Glitter, the first film to take up BEs challenge, the
writers, directors, and cast pioneered new techniques of using
singing stars to suck.

2002 - Master of Disguise, a movie that's so bad it goes past
good and back to bad. A true masterpiece in Dana Carvey's
attempt to dredge new depths of badness.

2002 - With Swept Away, the talented Guy Ritchie utilizes the
techniques developed on Glitter to make his wife Madonna the
star of one of the worst movies ever made.

2003 - Not to be outdone, Vincent Gallo films The Brown Bunny
and premieres it at Cannes to maximum effect. The critics of
the world hail it as the worst film they've ever seen.

2003 - Overshadowed by Gallo's hissy-fit is the fact that many
critics at Cannes later changed their mind and declared the
French entrant Les Cotelettes to be even worse.

2003 - Perfecting the Glitter formula by replacing the musical
superstars with no-talent manufactured pop-stars, Fox inflicts
From Justin to Kelly upon the world. The only thing preventing
this film from receiving accolades as the worst film ever is
the fact that most critics didn't even see it.

2003 - And now there's Gigli, a film that's generating an
unprecedented amount of buzz -- and that buzz is the sound of
flies on shit. The marketing department at Columbia has done
an astounding job of setting this up as the worst movie of
all time even before it's released. Kudos to them.

ObOtherThread: If this trend continues, Efram and Kyle might have
a career in Hollywood afterall.

--
Sean O'Hara
"Harry goes through absolute hell every time he returns to school.
So I think that a bit of snogging would alleviate matters."
--J.K. Rowling

deering1

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 7:54:36 PM7/31/03
to

Sean O'Hara wrote:

> ObOtherThread: If this trend continues, Efram and Kyle might have
> a career in Hollywood afterall.

Yo, if George Lucas doesn't take an interest in these two, he's
missing a bet.

C.
**
(Directors better with toys than people--hell, they should get
along famously--g!)

m泥c泱

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 11:57:16 PM7/31/03
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:20:09 -0400, Sean O'Hara
<darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>No, this isn't a Rander-style troll about how movies suck nowadays.
>Percentage-wise, there are no more bad movies today than in the
>past, however it does seem that the quality of these films is
>increasing (er, decreasing) to the point that bad movies are
>becoming an art form. Consider:
>
>2000 - Battlefield Earth, one of the few films, along with Plan 9
>and Manos, that a person can describe as "the worst film I've
>ever seen" without hyperbole. Set new standards for bad film-making.

The high production values magnifies the shame of all involved, IMHO.
Usually crap films are shoddily made, but the.....perpetrators.....of
BE made this piece of shit with great care and at great expense.


>2001 - Glitter, the first film to take up BEs challenge, the
>writers, directors, and cast pioneered new techniques of using
>singing stars to suck.

I still haven't seen this one. Is it as gloriously trashy as
Showgirls?


>2003 - And now there's Gigli, a film that's generating an
>unprecedented amount of buzz -- and that buzz is the sound of
>flies on shit.

ROFL LMAO - did you come up with that line yourself?
If so, give yourself a pat on the back. That is a classic. :D

deering1

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 11:56:20 PM7/31/03
to

"m泥c泱" wrote:
>
> >2001 - Glitter, the first film to take up BEs challenge, the
> >writers, directors, and cast pioneered new techniques of using
> >singing stars to suck.
>
> I still haven't seen this one. Is it as gloriously trashy as
> Showgirls?


No way. SHOWGIRLS is in-your-face-with-sequins-everywhere,
we-suck-and-we-_love_-it trashy. GLITTER--it's more feebleminded
and miscalculated than anything--g!

C.
**
(who was wondering all through the latter who has the most vacant
on-screen stare--Carey or Britney in CROSSROADS)

Dougie Roberts

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 2:25:32 PM8/1/03
to

"Sean O'Hara" <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.19934404...@news.cis.dfn.de...

>
> 2003 - And now there's Gigli, a film that's generating an
> unprecedented amount of buzz -- and that buzz is the sound of
> flies on shit.

ROFL! Damn that's funny.

Could they have picked a lousier title for this movie? I guess "Ishtar" was
taken.

Hugo Drax

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 12:07:23 AM8/2/03
to

>
> ObOtherThread: If this trend continues, Efram and Kyle might have
> a career in Hollywood afterall.
>
> --
> Sean O'Hara
> "Harry goes through absolute hell every time he returns to school.
> So I think that a bit of snogging would alleviate matters."
> --J.K. Rowling


HaaaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaaa.
(bully from the simpsons)


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages