close [×]

Dear Flixster Community,

After seven fabulous years with you all, we are sorry to let you know that we're going to be retiring the Flixster Community site on September 30, 2014. Please note that you can still access your ratings, reviews, and quizzes on Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes using your same login. We have had so much fun building this community with you.

Thanks for all the memories,

Worst Films Ever

  1. fb1008742212
  2. Harry

Page Views
  fb1008742212's Rating My Rating
The Final Countdown 1980,  PG)
The Final Countdown
The Final Countdown was such a massive waste of time, and i expected more for some reason.
It looked like a fun, 80's sci-fi adventure with a random plot and hectic action, and it had half of that.
Specifically, the plot which looked cool on the surface but became ruined by the fact that absolutely nothing happens. I was hoping for an epic battle to happen, but all that happens is a boat goes back in time, realises what time it is, then returns back to the future after experiencing minor setbacks. I was so hoping for a mega battle to happen between the Aircrafts, but alas, there was none. That was the only reason i watched this film. I mean, Kirk Douglas and Martin Sheen are good actors, but of all their films to watch this isn't one you'd be focusing on their acting in.
This was so damn boring, and thats the worst part.I don't understand how this became a cult classic. I mean, NOTHING HAPPENS! THIS IS ONE OF THE WORST FILMS EVER MADE!
Bad Lieutenant 1992,  R)
Bad Lieutenant
Bad Lieutenant can be summarized by the first word in the film title.

It would take courage for Harvey Keitel to step of to this role, but it would take even more courage to claim you directed this piece of crap. This film actually manages to go nowhere. Nothing happens except for Harvey Keitel pulling off a depressingly hollow performance supported by a terrible script. Although it would take courage for Harvey Keitel to take on this role and is a good actor, the film provides him with repetitive boring sequences where he can do nothing that isn't cliche or massively empty. The scene where Harvey Keitel is in the church was alright, but in the end Bad Lieutenant is massively lackluster and a misfire because it doesn't capitalize on the fact that he is a lieutenant, just that he likes drugs and sex. Also, the premise is hollow, the drama is slow and in the end, it's just one of the worst movies i have ever seen.
Skyline 2010,  PG-13)
Skyline starts out with a pointless intro extended by turning back the timeline, and within the intro you will witness crap acting and a terrible script. By 30 minutes, you will want to turn it off cause they manage to go through EVERY cliche element in film history without a redeeming moment. In the end, They advertised an alien invasion film, and thats what I expected. What I got was even Dumber and more boring than AVP: Requiem, another terrible film from the Strause brothers. Skyline relies on the quality of its visuals which are so rarely half-decent and buried under all kinds of poor filmmaking that it becomes the most minor thing in the film. If they had been used more and in a better way, then maybe Skyline wouldn't turn into one of the worst films I've ever seen, but the potential this film had was take and just shoved straight up the filmmakers ass. And they were dumb enough to leave the film open for a sequel after absolutely nothing happened in this one.
The Karate Kid 2010,  PG)
The Karate Kid
Were they F*cking kidding us with this? As a person who knows karate, i know that his way of learning karate would only work if the attacker was doing the same 3 moves simultaneously, but there is no way this could happen. Jayden smith was alright, but hes too young to be a karate kid. Also, Jacki chan was not funny in the slightest and HE WAS LEARNING KUNG FU!! NOT KARATE!!
Anaconda 1997,  PG-13)
Despite surprisingly decent intensity and unintentional laughs at a fully MTV cast with a fully stereotypical Ice Cube, Eric Stoltz acting like Michael J. Fox, Owen Wilson and Jennifer Lopez acting like it's a romantic comedy and Jon Voight looking and sounding like a Mexican Highlander, Anaconda is an obviously Jaws-influenced failure.
It's fairly obvious from within seconds of the Jaws style intro with Danny Trejo as the victim that could have been good was cut short by his self-inflicted Gunshot wound that left much for the audience to desire, especially nowadays because of the rise in Danny Trejo's popularity.
It's also easy to notice a screenplay so poor that it's somewhat comedic at times, but rarely when it means to be, and it's easier to notice especially because the first hour aims to capture a Jaws tone but rather leave the viewer incapacitated with boredom. And the editing on Anaconda could have been better, I mean if you put the right song over 3 minutes of this film's footage and you could convince almost anyone that it's a high budget music video.
Lastly, Anaconda features ridiculously slow pacing for a Creature Feature-Thriller-Adventure film. And maybe the visual effects may have been good in their time and are decent in parts, but much of the death scenes or scenes where the Anaconda attacks are of fairly poor quality.
So it's safe to say I'd consider Anaconda to be one of the worst films I've ever seen, and the decent premise could have been executed a hundred better ways.
Highlander II: The Quickening (Highlander 2) 1991,  R)
Highlander II: The Quickening (Highlander 2)
Russell Mulcahy had one job when he made Highlander 2: The Quickening: Tell a story about ancient warriors with cool sword fights, and let sleeping dragons rest, but he instead decided to destroy Highlander, the past of Highlander and the future of Highlander. He destroyed his own creation. What he did to Highlander is worse than what God did to Jesus, or what Abraham was about to do to Isaac. He had so many ideas, and they were all horrible. They destroyed everything set up by Highlander.
If I went into Highlander 2 with high hopes, id be largely disappointed. If I had low ones, I'd automatically not like it. That caused conflict within me, thinking there'd be no possible way I could enjoy Highlander 2: The Quickening. The fact is, there is no way to enjoy it because it is so damaging. The only reason to watch it is to see how badly a film series can be damaged when the director has too many ideas and none that work. If you like Highlander you will NOT like this. It barely works as a standalone film.
The few positives are that there is good cinematography, a cool soundtrack and even thou the plot is terrible, the budget supplied a decent look of the future. But it would have made more sense to cut the budget in half, use one half to fund a sci fi movie and use the other half to supply a sword fighting fantasy like the first Highlander.
Also, while Michael Ironside tries to be The Terminator, John C. McGinley tries to be Charles Foster Kane and Virginia Madsen tries to be Brenda Wyatt, Christopher Lambert tries nothing more than to be The Highlander.
And Sean Connery gave a decent performance in his small role, but Ramirez's resurrection is so damn impossible, even in a film about a magnetic shield protecting an atmosphere of a planet where aliens with intergalactic weapons fight to the death with mere swords. None of it made any sense.
The scene in which Louise Marcus summarizes the background of the immortals being on earth just perfectly shows how stupid the background of the subject is, which is illogical and stupid and could have had thousands of better alternatives. Even not knowing it would be better than living in a world where Connor Macleod is an exiled alien. I wish I could live in a universe where is film did not exist. I wish I did not watch it and was able to maintain the idea that The Highlander was just some kind of ancient immortal being, and now I cannot. None of this is Highlander! IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A SWORDFIGHTING FANTASY! Highlander 2: The Quickening becomes a mainstream science fiction film with almost no sword fights and so little fun because of the physical darkness of the film, amongst other things.
And the notion of the holy rule? The only rule is "There can be only one" I mean, come on!
One scene to point out it the Flying skateboard battle scene. For a film more than twice the budget of Highlander, the death sequence is so horribly executed and there are visible strings. How can something go THAT wrong?
Lastly, the pacing is ridiculously slow and it becomes utterly boring, so it's not hard to understand how little fun there is to be had.

If you haven't figured it out from such a scathing review, You are about as smart as Highlander 2: The Quickening, but it's the worst film ever made. I'm still up for checking out the 3rd Highlander, but Russell Mulcahy should have listened to the famous line from the first Highlander and never made a second. There can be only one.
Twilight 2008,  PG-13)
Admittedly, I went into Twilight with every intention to absolutely hate the film because its fans piss me off and its story is said to be one of the most pathetic examples of teenage romantic fiction ever to have flooded the screen. So against all of my better judgement and sensibility, I decided to put myself through a film that I had spent years mocking without ever having seen or read the source novel of.

The writing behind Twilight is absolutely ridiculous, from a scriptural and story perspective.
Twilight starts out like Mean Girls but without any of the amiable qualities that made the film to be the iconic feature that it was, because it merely adopts the same generic high school setting against the backdrop of a pathetic attempt at a horror setting. It is unconvincing and makes the shallow elements of Twilight all too obvious, which it should even for the most remedial of audiences.
Once we find out that Edward Cullen is actually a vampire even though we knew it all along, he walks into the sunlight and sparkles like Liberace. This is one of the most utterly ridiculous things I have ever seen in my life because it reveals the fact that Stephanie Meyer has not even the slightest bit of understanding about vampire mythology in her thick skull. Her stupid story is not the slightest bit vampiric, it can be summarised with a quote from my all time favourite novelist, Stephen King: "Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend." It is clear that Stephanie Meyer must have been a lonely girl who dreamed of a magic man coming in to rescue her from the perils of teenage angst and loneliness. And its fine to write about that, but when such a flawed and ridiculous concept turns into a popular novel and film which enforces the idea that a boyfriend is more important than common sense, that's when Twilight becomes a drain on the world and the minds of all the teenage girls who read it. To put it simply, Twilight wants to combine the theme of vampire love from the 1983 film The Hunger with the teenage vampire theme from the 1988 film The Lost Boys, but Stephanie Meyer's distinct lack of intelligence and inability to touch upon the theme of vampires even the slightest bit reinforces the fact that she is to writing what Uwe Boll is to filmmaking or Jar Jar Binks is to the Star Wars universe.
And when the story is turned into a script, all these negative elements are turned into words which a bunch of people are forced to say and with every word I could feel a brain cell die off. I actually got a headache from attempting to tolerate all the pathetic dialogue in Twilight. The dialogue isn't heard by the audience, it is infected into them.
The atmosphere in Twilight is constantly out of place, because it has a low key electric guitar riff playing at moments where it is far from appropriate such as moments that should be mysterious or melancholic. Instead, it tries to have a certain MTV anecdote to it which fails incredibly. Every time the music comes in I fel nothing if not simple annoyance, and when that combined with the grip visual elements I just found things to decrease in quality even heavier than expected.
The cinematography is one of the first elements you can notice about Twilight, and it immediately sets the film up to be poor quality because it is shaky and cheap looking. The camera quality is not up to par for a film budgeted at $37 million, especially since better cameras have been seen with a significantly lesser budget. The quality of the cinematography and the camera in general is lesser to director Catherine Hardwicke's directional debut feature Thirteen which was budgeted at a significantly lesser monetary quantity than Twilight with only $2 million to its name. The cinematography is also zoomed up on the faces of actors way too much and it leaves the viewer rather claustrophobic, and not in a good way in the slightest. Rarely does a film with a budget as big as Twilight's end up looking so cheap, dull and empty. And the colour palette is too grim and trippy to actually be effective in grasping the atmospheric feeling that it reaches for.
The editing is no better because it comes too quickly or too slowly without ever finding a genuine pace.
So we have already established that Twilight is a spectacular failure of a visual experience and a storytelling, but we haven't even gotten to the cast yet.
Every joke that anybody has ever said about Kristen Stewart's acting ability, every insult and every criticism anyone has ever said about her talent as an actress which is seen in Twilight, let me tell you something right now: it's true. It takes no time at all to determine that Kristen Stewart is a terrible actress because her performance isn't detached, its depressing. She puts no life into the lead role in Twilight and enforces its reputation as being one of the most shoddy romantic films ever made. I rarely come across an actress that is so bad that I find myself laughing at her, but Twilight is one of those cases. I actually was happy to have watched the film so that I could witness first hand just what an abysmal actress she truly is. I mean, Ben Affleck is better than her and I have mocked him hundreds of times for, among other things, his abysmal Golden Raspberry Award nominated performance from the awful war film Pearl Harbour. Ladies and gentleman, I have found another actor to add to that exact list. I can't imagine her being any worse than she was in Twilight even in a Michael Bay film, and her performance was clearly snubbed from the Golden Raspberry awards when she should have won Worst Actress. There is so much wrong with Twilight, but nothing more than the fact that she is the protagonist because whenever she talks to anybody else she essentially does nothing but go on a monologue which fails to acknowledge the fact that there is actually anybody else in the same vicinity as her. Kristen Stewart is almost too bad for Twilight which is already horrible enough, and so for a bad film like this to be too good for her is beyond this universe. Beyond I say.
I'm pretty sure that Robert Pattinson was suffering from some severe constipation the whole time that he was filming Twilight, because the entire time he does nothing but have the kind of stare in his eyes that suggests he desperately needs to take a massive sh*t but the writing of the film will not let him. He drops all of his credibility and talent the instant he begins speaking in Twilight I gave up hope that I would ever enjoy seeing him on film again. When he says "I'm designed to Kill", that is one of the dumbest lines of the film. No, Robert Pattinson you are designed to make idiotic little girls snicker, and if you succeeded at that then whatever. But you are NOT designed to kill. You are designed to do nothing because if you actually had any direction in life or ambition then you'd be acting with some heart. Robert Pattinson has less heart in Twilight than Baz Lurhman had in The Great Gastby. He follows that line up with "I've killed people before" when the only thing an idiot like that could kill is a career. Which he does by playing such an awful role in such a horrible film. It is saddening to know that Robert Pattinson is the same man who just three year prior gave a charismatic and likable performance as Cedric Diggory in the wonderful fantasy film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, my favourite of the series. Robert Pattinson makes me re-think if I should call that my favourite Harry Potter film, because he is so incredibly bad that I wanted to pull the skin off his face and wipe my ass with it. Robert Pattinson is unbearable, and he is more of a joke than an actor.
Cam Gigandet is an ab solutely atrocious villain, and is potentially worse than John Travolta was in a the antagonist in Battlefield Earth. At least John Travolta's performance was laughable due to poor quality while Cam Gigandet's is just too dull and shows his lack of experience and talent as an actor.
Taylor Lautner's smile is almost unbearable because its so plastic and obvious that it's a mask that he keeps in a jar by the door. Who is it for? All the lonely people that consider such an abysmal film to be good and terrible acting to be effective. But its not for the wiser, and he couldn't figure that out. So the only good aspect of Taylor Lautner's performance is simply the fact that his screen time is very minimal because he is so annoying that he makes me want to cut my hair so that I don't look the slightest bit like him, and nothing has ever made me want to cut my hair before in my life. Nothing.
Kellan Lutz should feel lucky that his career survived enough for him to get a pivotal role in The Expendables 3, because if they saw his work in Twilight they would be less likely to cast him than they would cast Dudley Moore who I remind you passed away many years ago.
Really, considering that Catherine Hardwicke is the same woman who directed the brutally realistic teenage drama film Thirteen in 2002, so see her creating a film which is further from sensible fiction than it is from reality is just depressing and its safe to assume that she has lost an appropriate sense of intelligent filmmaking and has managed to drag down many potential actors with her. Twilight is the point where I'm going to stop ever watching anything she has ever made, because while Thirteen was OK, Twilight is not. It's not ok, Catherine.

Twilight is one of the few examples in cinema where I can very happily say that it is one of the worst films I have ever seen, because now I can support the criticisms that everybody who has never seen the movie says with first hand experience and laugh every time the film is brought up so that I can flood the conversation with my wisdom on how horrible the film truly is. Rarely does a film fall short of its own parody film like Vampire's Suck, but Twilight does that with a grim colour palette of few flying colours.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon 2009,  PG-13)
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
As Twilight was so terrible that it was almost enjoyable for being so bad, The Twilight Saga: New Moon could only be either better or worse and I felt a need to find out which one it was.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon is no longer as funny in terms of being bad as the first Twilight was because Twilight managed to get everything wrong and a sequel to that is stupid, but also pointless because viewers are completely ready with what to expect. All I expected was another terrible melodramatic teenage romantic drama without even a hint or a whiff of originality in its vampire theme. And if you go in with those expectations, it is hard to be let down unless it is a film that you really end up hating.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon starts off where most crappy teen romantic films take about an hour to get to, with a brief scene that becomes directly linked to the breakup of its two characters. But the problem is that unless you're a fan of the novel series, then it's going to be hard to find it compelling at all. This time around, the story becomes a lot more romantic than in the first one, but the problem is the fact that the romance is terrible. It's a generic and formulaic plot element which doesn't really go anywhere but rather just circles its stupidities over and over again until the end of a slow paced, prolonged and pointless 130 minute running time. Twilight established that the universe of the film is poor, but The Twilight Saga: New Moon barely even tries to actually be part of the universe because it seems like nothing but a generic romantic drama which happens to have the name Twilight in it and the same poorly conceived characters from the first movie
The Twilight Saga: New Moon no longer even bothers to try and touch upon the mythology of its beastly characters, and instead just plays them off as an expendable subplot, or less. It is just pathetic, because I knew that Stephanie Meyer had no idea what vampire mythology was all about but in The Twilight Saga: New Moon it seems like she just wasn't even trying. The only scenes where you would find any connection between them is when you see the "werewolves" in action, but they are actually just regular wolfs with poor movement to them which isn't convincing or all that horrific.
And the characters are poor again. I mean, the story is already too terrible to actually be worth following, but the characters are just ridiculous. Their motives make no sense and are understandable only by looking in to the actual formula that the film follows. Yet even then it gets confusing because the tale in The Twilight Saga: New Moon is so incomprehensible and senseless that it is just depressing. And this is a problem because The Twilight Saga: New Moon forsakes fantasy for the romance between loveless characters and therefore is likely to bore anyone who doesn't give a crap about them. The characters are sketched worse than Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala were in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. And the chemistry between any two of them is terrible, so The Twilight Saga: New Moon is a worse romantic film than Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. But after the first film I expected that, but I didn't expect it to be more pathetic than in the first Twilight. It shows that Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner are even worse as a couple than Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, and that is actually an achievement in bad acting.
The visual elements of the film are dominated by repetitively grey scenery and a lot of guys taking their shirts off, which should actually be enough to appeal to the pre-pubescent female fans of the Twilight series. But for people with comprehensive minds, it will not be enough. The cinematography is poor as well and not innovative, as well as the fact that the visual effects are a little obvious when they don't need to be. So Chris Weitz manages to mess up everything in his attempt to make The Twilight Saga: New Moon a half decent film simply because it is built on Stephanie Meyer's egotistical inability to write a good story, and although it will most likely entertain fans ignorant enough to classify crap like the story in Twilight: New Moon as entertainment, the clear headed will see just what a terrible thing that it is.
And I won't even go into detail about the poor quality of the script, let's just say it is not an improvement and the cast manage to work it to the quality it is written in, which in a single word would be lousy.
Kristen Stewart's performance is a slight step up from her performance in the first Twilight, but it is very slight and it is still nothing to be proud of. She still says the line with senseless attempts at melodrama and a face that doesn't move. It is just pathetic. The character Bella Swan is weak, but Kristen Stewart actually makes it harder to care about her because she is just very tedious in the role. It is to be expected after seeing her lack of talent in Twilight, and she has a few minor improvements, but still I couldn't give a crap about Bella Swan because Kristen Stewart made it impossible to do so in The Twilight Saga: New Moon.
Taylor Lautner is given more screen time in The Twilight Saga: New Moon, and this is a big mistake because he reminds us what makes him a terrible actor. Once again donned in the ridiculous hair of a large candle of excrement that melted from his head and formed a shape around it forming the illusion of a hairstyle, Taylor Lautner brings nothing to the role but a beefcake body and monotonous line delivery. This is especially unfortunate as this time around he has a lot more lines to say, and yet he still has nothing interesting or any good way to say it. He is nothing but a model for the film, and he reminds us how vane Stephanie Meyer is for crafting such a terrible character.
And Robert Pattinson is as crap and as lifeless as ever.

So The Twilight Saga: New Moon isn't as bad is the first film because it doesn't completely defy the logic of vampire mythology for the sake of a romantic drama, but instead it ignores it and makes itself into a generic and terrible romantic drama which isn't the slightest bit good.
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 2010,  PG-13)
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
I wish i could insert a photo of Jack Black holding a stop sign to this review, but it's safer to say that the Twilight series started worse than Highlander 2: The Quickening and is just gradually killing me more and more
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 2011,  PG-13)
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1
Bestiality or Necrophilia? I'll pick...... A BETTER FILM
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 2012,  PG-13)
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2
Twilight? Do me a favour and suck me off the next time you're around.

You'd think it was decent due to the supernatural battle, you'd think wrong.
You'd think twilight is horrible no matter what, you'd think right.
The Super Mario Bros. 1990,  PG)
The Super Mario Bros.
When I first watched Super Mario Bros. as a kid, I loved it because I loved anything that had remotely to so with Super Mario. Looking at it now, Super Mario Bros. couldn't have less to do with the popular game series of the same name, and ends up being racist to to Italian-Americans and even Dinosaurs, and is quite frankly one of the worst films ever made. But the fact that someone actually tried to make a film based on Super Mario Bros. is more entertaining than the film itself.
Super Mario Bros. insults it's titular characters with it's two incredibly stereotypical actors who fail to bring any characterisation to Mario and Luigi. But at least Bob Hoskins tried to embody his character.
The rest of the actors aren't that much more impressive either, and the screenplay is terrible and gives no strength to any section of the film, and is a strong display of stereotypical Italian-American language which points out how I believe this film is racist. It even embodies that into the language of the Dinosaurs which is unfunny and just overly stupid.
It also focused too much on Luigi when Mario is the star. I'm pretty sure everyone experienced that problem.
And with a budget that overrun several times into $48 million, it's ridiculous that the direction is so poor that it makes Super Mario Bros. come out looking so cheap and having such poor editing, and a general lack of creativity.
Also, despite having some decent costumes, Super Mario Bros. fails to take advantage of the budget and gives the more efforts costumes and character designs to King Koopa and the Goombas, which look nothing in the slightest like the original characters, and if anything Super Mario Bros. is memorable solely due to the disturbing image of the Goombas as big fat goons with tiny heads. It fails to spend enough time having given the iconic costumes to Mario and Luigi for the majority if the film and so they are more memorable as Italian-American hoods than as Mario and Luigi. And it's as if the stupid directional team thought we wouldn't notice that Daisy was wearing a Peach outfit, so I think it's safe to say the directional section of Super Mario Bros. is stupid enough to think that it's know Super Mario characters better than Nintendo itself.
Even though the look of Yoshi was somewhat cute and good in a realistic sense, it was still too far from the original look of Yoshi to be considered all that good. It was still the best look of all the characters though.
But Super Mario Bros. had a massive setup and complex setting which became overly complicated and ridiculous, and nobody involved in the production of Super Mario Bros. had any real control over the production so it span out of control fast, and it's fairly obvious in the final product that Super Mario Bros. wasn't structured properly during production. It even had a musical score so repetitive and uncreative that it got annoying fast.
So Super Mario Bros. is one of the most incredibly bad expensive films I've ever seen and is painful in it's terrible production, and yet somewhat memorable for it to and is almost a film you're willing to watch just to enjoy the badness, even though it jeopardises your feelings of the Super Mario Bros.
Risky Business 1983,  R)
Risky Business
Risky Business, called an 80's classic and a star making film for Tom Cruise is without a doubt one of the worst films I have ever seen.

The 1980's were the pinnacle of teenage films, and largely memorable for pieces such as The Outsiders, The Breakfast Club, Red Dawn and more. Risky Business is one of the early attempts to take on a comedy film, but unfortunately there is nothing funny about it.
Tom Cruise's character in Risky Business is the most trivialised and cliche figure, a person that merely goes from being a tool to a guy who wants to have fun in the absence of authority. I cannot for the life of me see where the jokes rest in that. I never laughed in Risky Business, and if anything I found it to be more of a drama film. Ferris Bueller's Day Off explored that idea in a much better manner while Risky Business examined it on a below-minimum level.
Even it's concept of prostitution wasn't touched up in a clever manner. I mean, it's about a teenager who allows for his house to be a brothel for one night, and that's it. Aside from that, barely anything happens. The plot in Risky Business is utterly excessively thin and it's exploration of prostitution is unoriginal, especially in comparison to the similar themed film from the previous year, Night Shift. The only difference is that Night Shift has talented comedic actors, a good amount of laughs and skilled direction from Ron Howard. Risky Business' highlight was featuring Curtis Armstrong, the guy who played Booger in the teenage comedy classic Revenge of the Nerds as well as the nudity featuring Rebecca De Mornay.
But really, the thing that pissed me off the most about Risky Business was that the sole reason I watched it was for its erotic elements, by em which I mean Rebecca De Mornay's nude scene. And for some reason the blowfish that ran the Australian DVD release of Risky Business decided to alter the lighting in the scene to make it darker and shield my eyes from the nudity. If not for that, I wouldn't hate Risky Business like I do, but it takes that to make me realise that its a stupid and predictable failure of a supposed comedy that required that one scene to set the mood and failed to do it due to a moronic DVD release mistake.
Risky Business is a terrible rip off of Night Shift adapted for a teenage audience with satirical elements that are difficult to pick up on and a consistently dull and slow atmosphere. The characters aren't interesting, neither is Paul Brickman's direction. It all rests on the elements of two scenes: Rebecca De Mornay's nude scene and the famous scene where Tom Cruise sings Elvis in underwear and socks. The former is the atmosphere setting moment that the film would fail without as it would if it was censored as was my case, and the latter has become so trivialised now that it's effect isn't powerful anymore. Risky Business may be a cultural influence and the young cast may have done a talented job, but seriously, it's just one of the worst pieces of sh*t I've ever seen. It's boring as hell. It's predictable and it's a lot of other things, and it just plays too safe as a film so it's misleading that the title features the word Risky. I regret paying a full $10 for this.
A Good Day To Die Hard 2013,  R)
A Good Day To Die Hard
A Good Day to Die Hard should have been titled Die Hard 5 to simplify things and made A Good Day to Die Hard the alternative title, the way Die Hard 4.0 was alternatively named Live Free or Die Hard.

Ignoring the title, it becomes apparent fairly soon in A Good Day to Die Hard that there is a lack of plot explanation and poor cinematography, and so it becomes confusing and tedious. The whole beginning through to the shaky truck chase is just nonsensical and the camera quality is poor and blurry.
The cinematography in A Good Day to Die Hard also terrible because its always shooting from too far and pointless or too close and shaky.
The horrible thing is that A Good Day to Die Hard succumbs to the issues that practically all other action films of today do, with crap cinematography and poor editing in the important action sequences.
And they even threw in a plot about a son of John McClane's that nobody ever knew existed before, and therefore practically disgraces the series by making it ridiculously poorly plotted.
This can barely even be considered an entry into the Die Hard series because the plot is way too off-key and John McClane is stripped if his characterisation because the film ignores the fact that he's a badass American cop, but now he's been moved to Russia where he has no jurisdiction to rescue a son he never had. This can be blamed on Director John Moore who class clearly never ever seen a Die Hard movie in his life and has been more influenced by Taken 2 than anything else, and so he decides to disgrace the fans by destroying the series and probing that even Die Hard can be ruined and turned into just another sh*t modern day action film.
The lighting is terrible of because the skies are always grey so the atmosphere in monotonous, and outside of that the characters are constantly blocked by props or shrouded in dust.
John McClane has been turned into a empty bald man stripped of all the One-Liners that made him an awesome character in the first place, an you practically feel sorry for Bruce Willis for being dragged down by this disaster.
I dub A Good Day to Die Hard "Die Hardly" because its the furthest f*cking thing from Die Hard and is just terrible. I wouldn't have hated it so much if it was a standalone film that ruined the name of Die Hard, but thanks to John Moore, he puts every step in to ensure that he does. When the Golden Raspberry Awards roll around, he should most definitely win Worst Director.
But it's not all his fault, because it was Skip Woods' story and terrible screenplay that ensure that the characters are more soulless than the ones in Pearl Harbour.
And I don't think anyone ever said this about any film ever, but I'm just gonna say that Michael Bay would have been a way better director on A Good Day to Die Hard. He worked well with Bruce Willis on Armageddon, and he could have ensured that the action was good and even managed to work with Skip Woods' terrible material. He didn't even bother to write in the iconic line "Yipee Ki-Yay Motherf*cker!" And so this simply is not the slightest bit Die Hard.
A Good Day to Die Hard just destroys hope that action films will ever be good again, because the new wave of poorly lit, poorly filmed and poorly edited action films have managed to kill Die Hard. It did the one thing that I hoped it wouldn't. I walked into A Good Day to Die Hard and figured "this is the one film that can't be turned into another poorly edited modern action film" and yet John Moore put so much effort into ensuring that my hopes would Die Hard, and they did. A Good Day to Die Hard is officially one of the worst films of all time because it has officially destroyed my hope that action films will make a recovery one day.
The only slight enjoyment I got out of A Good Day to Die Hard was from seeing Amaury Nolasco since I've recently started watching Prison Break, but since I never understood the plot or why John Moore decided to do to Die Hard with A Good Day to Die Hard what Russell Mulcahy did to Highlander with Highlander II: The Quickening, it's safe to day I hated A Good Day to Die Hard with an absolute vengeance. If they ever make a Die Hard 6, it should be about Bruce Willis getting revenge on John Moore for destroying one of my favourite action franchises.
Flowers in the Attic 1987,  PG-13)
Flowers in the Attic
I read Flowers in the Attic and I very much enjoyed it, and I had an idea to one day adapt it into a movie if I were to ever become a successful film director. However, it turns out Jeffrey Bloom beat me to the punch with a poor adaptation of the story, so watching it would encourage me further.

Within seconds of watching Flowers in the Attic, it became clear that the film omitted much of the drama Cathy faces as a young girl growing up and gaining younger twin siblings which gave her an inner turmoil.
It also becomes quickly apparent that Jeffrey Bloom has chosen to have his adaptation embody an 80's film atmosphere rather than the more sophisticated one that V.C. Andrews' novel followed with its approach to a young girl's mind, as well as a change of setting from 1957 to 1987.
The story also fails to give enough time or depth into what's thing on in the minds of the characters after their father dies, so the film is laregly set up to be emotionally shallow.
Also, the script doesn't give the best direction to the cast because it characterizes Cathy as a whiny teenage girl trying to achieve perfection rather than a girl determined to do her best, and it's clear that she's significantly older than her character was in the original novel. Kristy Swanson's performance doesn't add anything to it either and furthers this characterization to a point where sympathizing with her becomes harder than what she's forced to go through with her siblings, and she just isn't right for the role and doesn't have the knowledge of how to use her ability to cry on command at the right time. The problem is that she's overconfident for the role and isn't actually good for it, while across the room is a performance from the unknown Jeb Stuart Adams who doesn't have any confidence, or any fame now as obvious by his low-profile career in poor quality films like this, and both actors' chemistry is worse than Natalie Portman and Hayden Christiansen's in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Even the little kids whose names i can't be bothered to isolate for this review are so poor at attempting to mix annoying childish behaviour with the cute kind that in the end I was practically siding more with Corrine and her decision to ignore the children and do what she did. Although in this case I would again blame Jeffrey Bloom for giving them direction that required them to play two stereotypical children personas each, and without a balance or proper coaching it comes off as tedious.
And all these aforementioned criticisms became apparent to me before I was even 10 minutes into the film, and continued throughout even after I made these assumptions, so what does that tell you?
Lastly, Victoria Tennant was so unconvincing as a mother that the theme of disbelief at what she did in the novel is omitted and predictable in the film which is just digging up a dead body to have sex with it, and there is literally no better metaphor than that.
After that involved a sequence where the dark grandmother Olivia Foxworth intimidates the children with her beliefs and rules, while in the book the moment is strong and intense except in the film the characters look like they're sitting through a lecture at university about acting but can't quite learn anything from it or pretend to look scared. Later on when the children attack her and she fights back, Olivia exclaims "Corrine, control your children...." And it's obvious that they couldn't be more controlled because the fake news of the scene makes me want to get far away from this film.
The symbolism in Flowers on the Attic is bereft in its film adaptation and its questionable why Cathy is crying because Olivia cut her hair, and this was explained in the book but seemingly stupid as hell in the film due to lack of explanation as to the importance Cathy's hair has to who she is. The scene is also a lot less savage because in the book her hair is tarred but in the film it's cut with scissors in a poorly edited scene, and so the execution is terrible like the execution of the majority of the film's scenes.
Also, the atmosphere of the film is predominantly that of a thriller when in the book the thrilling tone took place at certain moments in the film without being consistent and it was a drama as a whole, while this thriller is merely rudimentary as a whole. To make things worse, the atmosphere is empty. There is a terrible use of silence and minimal dialogue which could be used to assist characterizations of Cathy, Christopher or the twins, but instead it's used to bore the audience to death slower than getting poisoned but arsenic cookies, or preferably doughnuts the way V.C. Andrews intended.
And the musical score intends to make the atmosphere chilling and fantastical, but instead it deviates away from the realism of the story and makes it a strange dark fantasy without a hint of the theme of innocence which made the novel compelling, but rather a slow and boring story that attempts to convey the horror of being trapped but rather forays into the horror of Jeffrey Bloom as a director or screenwriter.
The lighting was also crap.
But what sucks about Flowers in the Attic is the way that since the producers were disturbed by Wes Craven's approach to an incest-laden story, they hired Jeffrey Bloom who deviated so far away from it that it barely deserves to be used in the same sentence as the book, and that was the single most important theme in the book that since the film omits it has it rendered invalid as a film.
And essentially, there isn't even a reason the characters should be scared aside from the dogs on the ground which weren't even part of the book, because there's no fear in the story and no acting that appears scared. It's about as scary as an episode of The Flinstones, and the characters on that show have chemistry streets ahead of the characters in this disgrace to the novel, so I would recommend anything vaguely related to The Flinstones over this 93-minute empty waste of V.C. Andrews material. And if you haven't read the book, you're odds of liking it aren't any bigger.

The only real visual benefit it the sight of Kristy Swanson slowly stroking her long wet legs in the bathtub which may have had the benefit of installing erections in testosterone-fueled teenagers of the late 1980's.
Also, although miscast for the role due to bring an Oscar-Winner for playing manipulative villains as opposed to up-front intimidating ones such as the one portrayed here, Louise Fletcher does what she does best mildly well in Flowers in the Attic even though she isn't provided with enough material to have her characterize Olivia Foxworth properly.

But all in all, Jeffrey Bloom's lack of directional talent and ignorant producers who wouldn't accept whatever Wes Craven could have created destroyed Flowers in the Attic from the beginning and whatever sequels could have come after it, and the ending to the film is the most destructive scene which leaves the intended sequels to be savaged in a similar manner, but luckily since this is one of the worst movies of all time and many critics realize its poor quality, it may be up to me one day to make a good film from the good source material that the makers of this film attempted to destroy.
Eegah! 1962,  PG)
Any film entitled Eegah isn't difficult to predict as being a crap movie, and if the viewer can get past the ordeal of the cheap and repetitively horrible opening credits then they are miracle workers. Seriously, no joke.
Eeegah is a phrase you're going to want to shout out in rage when sitting through this crap as a reaction to it, but mentioning the word will bring back bad memories to a time when you watched it.
The poor audio quality becomes apparent fast within the intro credits of Eegah since the same basic base note his heard again and again beyond the point where it's been dead for 50 years. But when I say bad, I mean all throughout the film there is a crackling or burning sound in the background and all of the dialogue sounds poorly dubbed, and when people are talking the script used is lackluster and ridiculous and the actors couldn't use it to do anything less than annoy the audience.
Watching Eager was painful because it was so horrible and boring and crappy and directionless that watching it is a greater challenge than finding the Loch Ness monster. It was painfully bad to watch and seriously is one of the worst films in existence, and it never even decides on a genre, since it has elements of comedy, drama, romance and horror without ever settling on one, Eegah doesn't understand itself any better than any person stupid enough to sit through this overlong 90-minute disaster. I'm unfortunately one of those people, and yes, Eegah is a boring disgrace with the credibility of Richard Nixon and is less entertaining for its badness than it is infectious with a serious case of cancer. Stay away from Eegah, I have never been this bored in a film or in writing a review, but Eegah managed to change both of that. Just read the plot and stop there, don't make the same mistake I did.

Comments (0)

Post a comment

Recent Comments