Jump to content

Films that just don't work


Guest Ian Marks

Recommended Posts

Guest Ian Marks

I was flipping through TV channels this past rainy Saturday and came across a Hal Hartley film called "No Such Thing," with Sarah Polley, Julie Christy and Helen Mirrin, and it was clear to me within minutes that even though this was a well-shot movie with some talented people attached to it, it just didn't - or couldn't - work. I wondered if the people making it had any sense of the dead horse they were helping to create, or whether they went about their various tasks with vigor and enthusiasm, thinking they were creating something original or entertaining or important.

 

This got me thinking about how every year there is a movie - or maybe two or three - that falls absolutely flat upon opening. I recally I was wondering if anyone had any "favorite" failed films, and why. Anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great subject... :P

 

My favorite "failed " movie has to be Gates of Heaven. I think it is a fine film, with exceptions. The bad publicity made things go far worse than if the movie was released without it...(duh) I remember the news doing spot interviews with people who just left the theatre saying, "...it was the worst film I've ever seen...", " ...horrible production values...", etc. You should consider yourself blessed if this is the worst film you've ever seen. My point being the public went into it just to be part of a flop. Sounds stupid, but its true. Kind of reverse cultural phenomenon. It is hard to remember but this film was a house hold name BEFORE it came out, for all the wrong reasons. No one gave it a chance. The small portion of people who went to see it WANTED to see a huge catastrophe!

 

Also, Ishtar. Horrible film. This is were I'm like you, wondering how in the world they are making this without a hint, a faint whif, of the poop they're putting on celluliod. :blink: This happens alot, when two good actors have wanted to work with each other for a looong time but "the right project never seemed to be there." Then they get together and produce a steaming pile. Hoffman has done this before, remember Mad City? With John Travolta? Crap. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this entirely subjective? There might be a majority opinion on these films, but there will also be a (albeit scattered) group who find all these movies appealing. I'm defending any personally, but I know of some certified crap that I still dig.

 

And please, no one bring up box office numbers. That has nothing do with whether a movie is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but I know of some certified crap that I still dig.

 

Haha, yeah great crap is the best. I love "Commando," one of the most atrocious films ever made.

 

Actually, I've been seeking out awful movies lately. I look for them on the 1.99 VHS rack at Video Market, because I want to figure out what they did wrong.

 

But my least favorite movie of all time is Pulp Fiction. I think I am the only one with this opinion. Geez, I hate that movie.

 

None of Robert Rodriguez' movies since El Mariachi has worked for me either.

 

And Shamalan's movies! what is it with that guy? Signs. The Village. come on. How do people like this guy?

 

I'll get too worked up if I keep talking about the works of these three directors...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1941- Had all the right elements and just didn't work. Makes you wonder.

It was too "pretty"; cast, costumes, settings, and special effects. We have actual film, both Japanese and American, some even in color of what Pearl Harbor really looked like. No-one knows what an invasion from Mars might really look like but I suspect you'd have to look under quite a few rocks to find an American who had never seen documentary or news film of Pearl.

 

"MIB", "War of the Worlds", "Encounters", "Independence Day", etc. all can fly because they aren't instantly compared in the viewers sub-conscious with the real thing. In a funny kind of way all the space invaders movies have created a mutual mass consciousness of what a space invasion would look like. I bet if the real thing ever happens it won't look like anything the human race has envisioned, but something very (to not coin a phrase) alien.

 

Edmond, OK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And please, no one bring up box office numbers. That has nothing do with whether a movie is good.

 

So you mean to state that a film being or not being commercially succesful

Doesn't have anything to do with the film being good?

 

This is the kinda attitude that breeds bad films...

"fu** what everyone thinks...I'm gonna make the greatest film cause I'm a genius..."

It's a bit arrogant and infantile if you ask me.

 

In an industry where the ultimate goal is to have your film (and ideas) viewed by millions...

A film has to at some point be measure by the amount of attention it gardners from the public.

 

Of course I'm not advocating that a big blockbuster that opens in 4000 theathers nationwide

with millions of dollars pumped into it's publicity

Is gonna be better than a smal film that opens in 300 theaters nationwide...

But at some point you have to take into consideration the audience's acceptance of the film

 

Otherwise we'd live in a world subjected to the artist & creator's perceptions of good and bad art... :o

And how horrible would that be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was too "pretty"; cast, costumes, settings, and special effects. We have actual film, both Japanese and American, some even in color of what Pearl Harbor really looked like. No-one knows what an invasion from Mars might really look like but I suspect you'd have to look under quite a few rocks to find an American who had never seen documentary or news film of Pearl.

 

"MIB", "War of the Worlds", "Encounters", "Independence Day", etc. all can fly because they aren't instantly compared in the viewers sub-conscious with the real thing.

 

---'1941' wasn't about Pearl Harbor and wasn't, I believe, supposed to be any more realistic than a Popeye cartoon.

Now if you're writing about 'Pearl Harbor', you could have a point. That movie made one appreciate 'Tora, Tora, Tora' even more.

 

As for 'Independence Day', the viewer's instantly comparing it with other movies.

During the final sequence, I was ticking off what other movie each shot was lifted from. I doubt that I was the only one, and I think that that goes for too many movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---'1941' wasn't about Pearl Harbor and wasn't, I believe, supposed to be any more realistic than a Popeye cartoon.

Now if you're writing about 'Pearl Harbor', you could have a point. That movie made one appreciate 'Tora, Tora, Tora' even more.

 

As for 'Independence Day', the viewer's instantly comparing it with other movies.

During the final sequence, I was ticking off what other movie each shot was lifted from. I doubt that I was the only one, and I think that that goes for too many movies.

 

Agreed as to your comments about "1941" and "Pearl Harbor". It's sad that Tora did it better than Pearl too. It's sad using CGI without any real planes to supplement the combat footage in "Pearl". As for "ID4", I guess I'm one of the few here that really enjoys it. I thought the script was good, effects were great (in my mind this is the perfect blend of models, motion control, and photo-realistic CGI), and acting was flawless. The only real weak area was the actual makeup of the aliens. Then again, I first saw this film in the summer after 3rd grade, so I guess my mind is still flavored by my impression of the film then. Sure, it isn't a very original film, but what IS original in such a well-established, commercialized artform such as film? It's hard to be completely original going back over 100 years of film without doing something truly outlandish (which we all know is NOT always a good thing). I seem to recall an episode of "Southpark" addressing the problem of every conceivable thing that Cartman wanted to do that he thought was "original" having been done on an episode of "The Simpsons" ;-)

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Ishtar. Horrible film. This is were I'm like you, wondering how in the world they are making this without a hint, a faint whif, of the poop they're putting on celluliod. :blink: This happens alot, when two good actors have wanted to work with each other for a looong time but "the right project never seemed to be there." Then they get together and produce a steaming pile. Hoffman has done this before, remember Mad City? With John Travolta? Crap. <_<

 

---'Ishtar' wasn't good, but it wasn't horrible either. Mediocre and not particularlly memorable.

But just like 'Heaven's Gate' it was the victim of negative pre release hype about cost over runs and being an out of control production. Thus it lives on with an infamy it doesn't quite deserve since didn't take down a major production company.

 

 

---LV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think think that. I think that to a degree, people are sheep. Big box office just proves a lot of people saw it. It doesn't mean it was good, or that they even liked it. It just means they saw it. Didn't most of the oscar contenders last year do pretty poorly, from a financial standpoint? I'm not saying they were good either (I'm also not saying they weren't), but someone thought so.

 

Just 'cause a lot of people like it doesn't make it good. Everything is subjective. Really. Truly. I hated the Matrix. Many didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great subject. I think we learn far more from failed or mediocre films than we do from great films, because great filmmakers, like great athletes, make it all look so easy. Bad and mediocre films are good for showing us how NOT to do things. I also agree that No Such Thing didn't work at all.

 

There are films that are so flat-out bad and cheaply made that they're depressing; I'm more interested in "quality misfires" -- in which the filmmakers seem to be trying hard, but the movie just doesn't work, for a variety of reasons. Here's a short list of "quality misfires" that I've gone back to a few times. You can often find these DVDs in the cheapie bins. (As a side note, I've found a disproportionate number of films in this category are MGM titles from the eighties and nineties. Hmmmmm....)

 

State of Grace (DOP: Jordan Cronenweth, ASC)

The Mean Season (DOP: Frank Tidy, BSC)

Catch-22 (DOP: David Watkin, BSC)

Wind (DOP: John Toll, ASC)

Dreamcatcher (DOP: John Seale, ACS ASC)

 

All these films look either very good or great. But as the credits indicate, even the best DPs in the world are not miracle-workers when the problem is in the script.

 

If anybody's got a list of their own "quality misfires," please post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ian Marks

This discussion suggests to me that hype, box office, and our own expectations play a role in whether we view a movie as a failure or not.

 

You have to wonder if a new unknown director had made "1941," and if it had been made on a more modest budget, if people would have thought better of it. Maybe it was actually a poorer film for all the money spent on it, and the hype surrounding it.

 

"Heaven's Gate" is another movie that probably would have faired better if it weren't inextricably linked in the public's mind to the budget fiasco taking place behind the scenes. And of course Cimino was coming off of "Deer Hunter," so people's expectations were probably higher than if his last film had been just a middling success.

 

Likewise, you've got "Waterworld." If this had been a $20 Van Damme vehicle, people would have dismissed it as harmless, formulaic fun. (For post-apocalyptic fun, it's hard to beat "Cherry 2000," and that couldn't have cost much to make.)

 

And what about "Town and Country?" Did that even make it to the theaters? I live in L.A., and I don't remember it playing here.

 

At the other end of the budgetary scale, you've got films like "El Mariachi," which caused such a stir because it was supposedly a $7,000 movie. People cut that movie a tremendous amount of slack because of that number (don't get me wrong, I still think it was quite an accomplishment for Rodriguez).

 

But when I started this thread, I wasn't necessarily thinking about the whole budget/hype/expectations thing. . . it was more about those movies where you just watch in awe of how something could go so off-track with so many talented people working on it. Remember "Meet Joe Black?" "Hearts in Atantis?" And here's a real stinker: "Bad Girls," with Drew Barrymore and Madelene Stowe. Eeuwph!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, right there: Dreamcatcher.

 

 

Now, here's the thing--that movie was fairly accurate to the book 'til the ridiculous ending. So if you didn't like it, then what you're saying is you didn't like the book/story. I didn't think it was that bad (Stephen King's okay--I don't worship him nearly as much as I used to) 'til the super retarded ending. But, to each his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to come in defense of the first film mentioned in the thread. I happened to like No Such Thing. I'm a pretty big fan of Hal and I feel he makes films for a cult audience. Not really the mainstream public. It's not his best work but it's important to keep it in perspective. To a regular member of the pubic unfamiliar with his style it's a trainwreck. To those of us in on the joke, it's definitely interesting.

 

On the other hand, I suffered through Must Love Dogs last night and I think most people probably loved it. To me, it lacked any originality and absolutely zero style to it. The only element that kept it watchable was John Cusack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to come in defense of the first film mentioned in the thread.

 

We can all agree this is a totally subjective opinion. There's no point in defending any film in this context.

 

Let's stick to the subject of the thread: "Films that just don't work." Post your lists and let us watch and decide for ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ian Marks
I have to come in defense of the first film mentioned in the thread. I happened to like No Such Thing. I'm a pretty big fan of Hal and I feel he makes films for a cult audience. Not really the mainstream public. It's not his best work but it's important to keep it in perspective. To a regular member of the pubic unfamiliar with his style it's a trainwreck. To those of us in on the joke, it's definitely interesting.

 

Well, that's just the thing, Michael. As I was watching this movie, I was thinking, is it me, or is it the movie? Is there some aspect of this story that I'm just not getting, or is it that there's nothing to get? So I went on line, and went to IMDB and elsewhere, and started reading comments about the film from people who were obviously intelligent and thoughtful and they had a different (generally positive) take on the movie. In fact, I shouldn't have implied that the movie was a trainwreck - although I sure didn't like it - but it did get me thinking about movies that, for me, at least, just don't work. Then again, I thought "Blazing Saddles" was high art - especially the baked bean eating scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it, but geez, Catch-22 would be so incredibly hard to do well. I bet only the Coen Brothers could pull it off.

 

Speaking of the Coen Brothers and films that don't work:

 

The Ladykillers

Intolerable Cruelty

 

A few more from different directors:

 

Legend

Broken Flowers

A.I.

Malice

Sunset

Blood Work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And please, no one bring up box office numbers. That has nothing do with whether a movie is good."

 

You don't happen to be a socialist working at the Canadian Broadcasting Corp are you?

 

Next you'll tell us the purpose of TV is to "expand the mind."

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---'Ishtar' wasn't good, but it wasn't horrible either. Mediocre and not particularlly memorable.

But just like 'Heaven's Gate' it was the victim of negative pre release hype about cost over runs and being an out of control production. Thus it lives on with an infamy it doesn't quite deserve since didn't take down a major production company.

---LV

 

 

Heavens Gate! I put Gates of Heaven...I must not know what I'm saying if I can't even remember the title of the film in question!!! :lol: My mom was right, I'm an idiot! :lol:

 

I don't think Ishtar is sloppily made. I can't stand the dialogue, situations, anything. I think it fits perfectly for " a film that just doesn't work". Horrible may be too much....to say publicly. I still think its a steaming pile.

 

 

Another one is American Psycho. I don't know why it doesn't work...I actually like the movie. Maybe the subject material and the way it is presented is hard for me to wrap my head around. Yeah, I think thats it. Good film thats just hard for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when you're talking about aesthetics in almost any form (whether you're judging a restaurant or a film), it's important to evaluate the "text" (or film, or dining experience, etc...) against what it is aspiring to, not some absolute set of criteria.

 

You can't really compare fast food with haute cuisine, but you certainly can compare how successful each is in acheiving its goal (a good $2 Big Mac is "better" than a horribly-cooked, $40 filet). We're more inclined to view something as a failure when it falls far short of its own goal, even if on its own merit it is "better" than an inferior work.

 

For instance, all of the elements of a film like "Snow Falling on Cedars" on their face value may be considered "better" than the elements of a teen gross-out comedy, but we enjoy the teen comedy because we know what we're in for and it accomplished what it set out to do. And we're disappointed with "Cedars" because it just didn't measure up to itself.

 

Hope that makes some sense. That being said, "Snow Falling on Cedars" is one film I think that certainly didn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed as to your comments about "1941" and "Pearl Harbor". It's sad that Tora did it better than Pearl too. It's sad using CGI without any real planes to supplement the combat footage in "Pearl". As for "ID4", I guess I'm one of the few here that really enjoys it. I thought the script was good, effects were great (in my mind this is the perfect blend of models, motion control, and photo-realistic CGI), and acting was flawless. The only real weak area was the actual makeup of the aliens. Then again, I first saw this film in the summer after 3rd grade, so I guess my mind is still flavored by my impression of the film then. Sure, it isn't a very original film, but what IS original in such a well-established, commercialized artform such as film? It's hard to be completely original going back over 100 years of film without doing something truly outlandish (which we all know is NOT always a good thing). I seem to recall an episode of "Southpark" addressing the problem of every conceivable thing that Cartman wanted to do that he thought was "original" having been done on an episode of "The Simpsons" ;-)

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

 

This shows you what a nerd I am. It was Butters as Professor Choas. I love that show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, a film that "just doesn't work" is something apart from a film that out-and-out sucks. A film that doesn't work can have some good elements and yet simply not coalesce into a solid viewing experience. I could list a lot of films that I thought sucked, but I don't learn anything from watching pure crap. It's the near-misses and well-meaning fiascos that are the most instructive for me.

 

Then there are films that are severely compromised by one or two unfortunate elements. I put Ladyhawke and Blade Runner in this category. Ladyhawke had a ridiculous musical score and Blade Runner had a sloppy script. They both work, I suppose, but barely. I personally feel Heaven's Gate belongs in the "severely compromised" category. I also put two of Kubrick's films here: Lolita and The Shining. Spielberg gets honorable mention for 1941, Empire of the Sun, Hook, Always and A.I. Some spectacular misfires there.

 

Some unqualified duds (IMO):

 

The Tailor of Panama

Extreme Prejudice

Kundun

Broken Flowers

Deal of the Century

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...