Worst movies ever

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Good point. However, had it just been a documentary, it would have been aired on Nova or the Discovery Channel. Or the National Geographic Channel, perhaps. Would have generated a little buzz. But throw in the full Hollywood production on top of the fascinating history angle and you get this:

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltim...ion=world-wide

No other movie in history has even come close. Look how far ahead of the second place movie it is. Mind-boggling when you think about it.

I'd be curious to know how much of that money made by this movie came from teenage girls who had no interest in the ship or the history of that event, but to see Lenny's pouty face. I know a girl who was 15 at the time it was released (a friend's daughter) who saw the movie something close to 25 times in the theater with her friends.

I agree that the interest in the Titanic would have not been like it was had it been a documentary; however, I would have gladly paid the money to see it rather than telling my wife about 1/2 way through it to wake me up when it was over and wishing I had spent the money on an extra large meal from Arby's (which I don't like).

[creekster]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I'm with you there. Bad, bad movie.

Gummo was a disgustingly horrible movie. There was nothing redeemable about this movie. That movie wasn't even good enough to be considered the worst.

I have the same complaint about Pearl Harbor as IPU did about Titanic. You take one of the biggest moments in our nations history and make it a sidestory to a strange love triangle. Lame. Michael Bay missed the mark when he made that crappy movie. Cuba Gooding needed a better part, he's way better than Ben Affleck.

Pearl Harbor was a dreadful movie, no doubt, except it was saved, in my mind, by the battle scense, which were pretty well done. I watched the actual attack on Pearl a couple of times when we rented it, but the rest of it was dreck. A top european theatre FIGHTER pilot sent to the pacific theatre to fly a BOMBER to tokyo? Puh-leeze. Even so, the intial parts of the attacks on Pearl itself were pretty good.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by creekster

Pearl Harbor was a dreadful movie, no doubt, except it was saved, in my mind, by the battle scense, which were pretty well done. I watched the actual attack on Pearl a couple of times when we rented it, but the rest of it was dreck. A top european theatre FIGHTER pilot sent to the pacific theatre to fly a BOMBER to tokyo? Puh-leeze. Even so, the intial parts of the attacks on Pearl itself were pretty good.

Agreed about Pearl Harbor. It was even worse than Titanic in the sense that it ruined an historical event.

The battle scenes were great, but not enough to ever make up for the dispcable story which I considered to be exploitation and degrading to the veterans who were stationed at Pearl Harbor.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

To fit this category movies must be earnest; they can't be self aware. For example, any movie with a gratuitous topless scene can't qualify becasue it shows they are going for the quick buck, or at least aren't intending to be 'art.' So, pretty much anything by Andy Warhol would qualify, in my mind.

I alos thought The Notebook was one of the most painful 90 minutes of my life.

I love romantic comedies and romances in general, more so than action flicks. The Notebook was not a very good movie.

[cougjunkie]

You mean Pearl Harbor has a love story in it?

Thats funny, i thought it was one of those short movies about an hour long with nothing but fighting.