Movies You Would Rather Vomit On Than Watch Twice

I had the misfortune of watching Four Brothers the other night. Complete garbage from beginning to end.
 
WELL U KNOW WHAT! If someone can put "A Clockwork Orange" on this list than Children of men should be at the top of the vomit list. I stand by my opinion. COM shouldn't have had a campaign praising the cinematographer, but it's just everywhere you go I hear everyone saying "Alfonso Cuaron is a genius! OMG HE'S A GENIUS!" no no no!!! IT'S THE CINEMATOGRAPHER! Stanley Kubrik is a genius nawt alfonso. A Clockwork Orange is possibly one of the best movies ever made!
 
Thomas Hughes said:
WELL U KNOW WHAT! If someone can put "A Clockwork Orange" on this list than Children of men should be at the top of the vomit list. I stand by my opinion. COM shouldn't have had a campaign praising the cinematographer, but it's just everywhere you go I hear everyone saying "Alfonso Cuaron is a genius! OMG HE'S A GENIUS!" no no no!!! IT'S THE CINEMATOGRAPHER! Stanley Kubrik is a genius nawt alfonso. A Clockwork Orange is possibly one of the best movies ever made!
Click to expand...

Who brought up Clockwork Orange? I agree that Stanley Kubrick is a genius and that Clockwork Orange is a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean that Children of Men can't be a masterpiece as well. Yes, Alfonso Cuaron may not have yet reached the levels of Stanley Kubrick, but his work shouldn't be discredited because of it. A lot of people today are trying to imitate a cinéma vérité style in their films and, in my opinion, Alfonso Cuaron (and yes the cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki as well) is one of the only directors getting it right.

Even if you didn't find the Children of Men entertaining, you have to admit that it is at least a technical masterpiece. You can't tell me that the 7 minute SINGLE steadicam shot of Clive Owen running through a battleground at the end of the film is anything but genius. The planning and execution of that shot would have taken several months and would require a highly-skilled director to pull it off.

And as for the lack of praise for the cinematographer, do remember that Emmanuel Lubezki was nominated for an Oscar for his work in this film and Alfonso Cuaron was not. So I don't think he went completely unnoticed.
 
While overall I enjoyed Children of Men, and yes the long tracking shot was impressive, I felt the handheld shooting style was overused to the film's overall detriment. To many times it just drew me out of the movie all together. It seems to be the "style de jeur" particularly with foreign directors. It has its place, but its place should be motivated, not just a gimmick.
 
I do WHOLLY agree that hand held is overused way to much as a gimmick. As I mentioned in my previous post that many directors are trying (and failing) to imitate the cinéma vérité style. However, I think it is very much motivated by the story in this film. Children of Men is a film that is constantly moving. You feel the sense of urgency that Theo feels throughout the film as he is desperately trying to get this girl and her unborn baby Human Project. Also filming it in a "documentary" style with hand held shots and deep focus lenses grounds this science fiction film in reality, in a way that I think static cameras and beautiful shallow focus shots could have never achieved.

Okay, I'm done. I will get off my Children of Men high horse now.
 
Don't get me wrong. At times during the movie it was definitely motivated. Particularly in the battle scenes. (One of the best places to use handheld) I just felt it was used in places that just jumped out and said, "Hey, look at me. I'm cutting edge."
 
Last edited:
I can definitely see where your coming from with that opinion. I get frustrating when watching something where there is shaky hand held shots for no explicable reason (Lost is a huge culprit of this).
 
Blaine said:
Don't get me wrong. At times during the movie it was definitely motivated. Particularly in the battle scenes. (One of the best places to use handheld) I just felt it was used in places that just jumped out and said, "Hey, look at me. I'm cutting edge."
Click to expand...

What's the point of being cutting edge, if no one's looking?
 
tlorenzo said:
Ace Ventura: When nature calls
I really like Jim Carrey, but this one was just way over the top

Anaconda

Barb Wire

Blair Witch Project

Cool as Ice

Howard the Duck

Look who's talking

Look who's talking now

Spice World
Click to expand...

Excellent list.

Ahhh...Cool As Ice. I have seen this thing two or three times, and it just gets worse and worse each time you watch it. It's so bad, that you find yourself drawn to it. I actually find myself thinking about shot composition from that film quite frequently (as well as cuts, crap music, and pacing). It's disturbing. And no, sadly, I am not kidding.

Anaconda did suck. Huge. Sorry, Roger Ebert.

We discussed the whole Blair Witch Project thing in a film marketing class taught by a VP of a major Canadian entertainment entity, and he basically wrote it off to hype and advertising. The film sucked, but the lemmings came running. He gave us passes to Blair Witch 2, but (irony?) I passed.

Some new additions on my part...

Meat Eater

Snake Eater (it was just on, and I tried to watch it, but had to bail...one day I may try again.)

3000 Miles To Graceland

Turkish Star Wars (though it must be seen once)

Posse (Van Peebles shamelessly rips off plots, style and scenes from Leone et. al)

Gunmen (Van peebles rips of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly)

Rappin' (for the Van Peebles trifecta)
 
Last edited:
AloysiusK said:
Regarding Van Peebles ripping off Leone. Well, Leone ripped off Kurosawa too.
Click to expand...


Yes, he did, but he added something to it (like Tarantino did with City On Fire to make Reservoir Dogs). When you borrow plot, but make the style your own and heavily influence a genre, it is one thing.

When you borrow plot, style and scenes, then you're just blatantly stealing. Stealing and making crap just compounds the crime. Maybe that is why pretty much nobody cites any of Van Peeble's work when discussing influence, form, style, etc.
 
Leone was also surrounded by tremendously talented people. Tonino Delli Colli and Morricone are icons.

I am not really that interested in Van Peebles, although I really dug Badassss(which is also derivative).

Back to topic....

Crash(Haggis) made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
 
The only movie that I've never been able to sit through is the original Highlander.

Hitchcock made a lot of crap too, IMO. As 1941 shows, a career full of classics doesn't mean your flops will be forgotten.

I'll tell you what movie I love though... The Dirty Dozen. Still full of grit after all these years.
 
sbryan said:
Hitchcock made a lot of crap too, IMO. As 1941 shows, a career full of classics doesn't mean your flops will be forgotten.
Click to expand...

Three Things:

1) Hitchcock did not make ANY crap.
2) Are you referring to the film 1941? If you are, Hitchcock didn't have anything to do with that film. It was directed by Spielberg.
3) There can be only one!
 
worst movie of all time "Showgirls". I hate it so much I don't know why I watch it every time its on.

my list of stupid films
ERAGON
SWEET HOME
OCEANS 12
SLOW BURN
GANGS OF NEW YORK
CHARLIE'S ANGELS
X MEN ( ALL)
BATMAN
SUPERMAN 4
ROCKY 5
RAMBO 4 BEFORE THEY MAKE IT
WILD WILD WEST
HOLY MAN

ETC ETC ETC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top