toldailytopic: The worst movies of all-time.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
One of the most infuriating, pointless, wretched films I've ever seen has to be Edmond. Normally I'm a big fan of Mamet's work but the film (and play, I have to assume) is just despicable.
 
D

davidgmcdowell

New member
How To Make An American Quilt-Came out around 1995 and I took a date to an over-priced movie theatre that cost $8 (par for the course now, but not 15 years ago).

New Moon had to be, by far, the worst movie I have seen in a while. I didn't like Twilight either.
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Four O'Clock said:
Another good one that shouldn't be on the list. Have no desire to see the remake. A very groundbreaking film considering the year (1982) And you gotta like Jeff Bridges and David Werner.
Click to expand...
:sozo:IT'S NOT A REMAKE! IT'S A SEQUEL!

P.S.
Jeff Bridges is in the sequel.

tetelestai said:
Never saw it.

There are some movies I won’t see just based on who is in them (i.e. Julia Roberts, Keanu Reeves, Pauly Shore, etc)

Stallone is on the list also.
Click to expand...
Then you cannot definitively state that all of his movies since First Blood have been among the worst movies ever made.
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Cruciform said:
Anything---anything whatsoever---by Tyler Perry! :doh:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Click to expand...
Really? I've only ever seen one movie and the television show based on it is hilarious! The movie wasn't a comedy, though.
 
Lovejoy

Lovejoy

Active member
Lighthouse said:
:sozo:IT'S NOT A REMAKE! IT'S A SEQUEL!

P.S.
Jeff Bridges is in the sequel.


Then you cannot definitively state that all of his movies since First Blood have been among the worst movies ever made.
Click to expand...

I actually really, really enjoyed Rocky Balboa. Stallone does not have to stink. Has anyone seen the expendables yet?
 
Lovejoy

Lovejoy

Active member
Cool! A battle over the etymology of an idiom! That, frankly, is a better premise for a movie than most that have been cited in this thread. Certainly better than The Spirit!
 
The Graphite

The Graphite

New member
Lighthouse said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...
Aside from being common knowledge (or so I thought), it's easily proven by the fact that this title was only the last of several proposed titles for the book, including Catch-18 and Catch-11. The author coined the term, and originally published part of the novel under the name Catch-18, but his publisher talked him into changing it for various reasons.


Wikipedia said:
Explanation of the novel's title
The title is a reference to a fictional bureaucratic stipulation which embodies multiple forms of illogical and immoral reasoning. That the catch is named exposes the high level of absurdity in the novel, where bureaucratic nonsense has risen to a level at which even the catches are codified with numbers.

A magazine excerpt from the novel was originally published as Catch-18, but Heller's agent, Candida Donadio, requested that it change the title of the novel so it would not be confused with another recently published World War II novel, Leon Uris's Mila 18. The number 18 has special meaning in Judaism (it means life in Gematria) and was relevant to early drafts of the novel which had a somewhat greater Jewish emphasis.[20]

The title Catch-11 was suggested, with the duplicated 1 paralleling the repetition found in a number of character exchanges in the novel, but because of the release of the 1960 movie Ocean's Eleven this was also rejected. Catch-17 was also rejected, so as not to be confused with the World War II film Stalag 17, as well as Catch-14, apparently because the publisher did not feel that 14 was a "funny number". Eventually the title came to be Catch-22, which, like 11, has a duplicated digit, with the 2 also referring to a number of déjà vu-like events common in the novel.[20]

A 1950s/early 1960s anthology of war stories included a short version as "Catch-17".[21]
Click to expand...

The article at Wiki has citation for the above information, particularly a published, biographical account of Joseph Heller's life during the time he was writing this novel.
 
The Graphite

The Graphite

New member
Lovejoy said:
Cool! A battle over the etymology of an idiom! That, frankly, is a better premise for a movie than most that have been cited in this thread. Certainly better than The Spirit!
Click to expand...
Lighthouse and I reserve 50% each of the movie rights for this premise.
 
Lovejoy

Lovejoy

Active member
The Graphite said:
Lighthouse and I reserve 50% each of the movie rights for this premise.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well there should be some kind of battle-to-the-death climax that gives the whole thing purpose. Therefore, 50% will likely be going to someone's estate, to be held in probate....
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
The Graphite said:
Aside from being common knowledge (or so I thought), it's easily proven by the fact that this title was only the last of several proposed titles for the book, including Catch-18 and Catch-11. The author coined the term, and originally published part of the novel under the name Catch-18, but his publisher talked him into changing it for various reasons.

The article at Wiki has citation for the above information, particularly a published, biographical account of Joseph Heller's life during the time he was writing this novel.
Click to expand...
Learn to take a joke.

The Graphite said:
Lighthouse and I reserve 50% each of the movie rights for this premise.
Click to expand...
:chuckle:
 
The Berean

The Berean

Well-known member
Four O'Clock said:
Another good one that shouldn't be on the list. Have no desire to see the remake. A very groundbreaking film considering the year (1982) And you gotta like Jeff Bridges and David Werner.
Click to expand...

It's a sequel not a remake. Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner are back!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top