ten most disapointing (not best or worst) movies

So ten movies that are disapointing in some way, (not that they do not have intrinsic qualities of their own) because-



production values are low because of inadequate budget ("Fortress", )

didn't live up to their hype ("Windtalkers")

didn't do justice or disrespected their subject matter ("Pearl Harbor", "Battle of the Bulge", "U-571")

critical and audience expectations, film was not what was expected ("Monuments Men")

missed their core audience, Box Office disaster ("1941")

Uneven acting ("Saints and Soldiers")

Eccentric, Not everyone's cup of tea ("Inglorious Basterds", "Castle Keep")



This is a discussion starter. It came from an idea in Best - Worst list thread.

Many of people's cringe worthy movies (the ones they put on their ten worst list) are liked or even loved by others. The movies are often professionally made - properly lit, in focus, good sound, correct camera work, sometimes adequately or even well acted. So what puts them on a terrible movie list?

 

There are many that do not pass the test of time. (That would be my category to include.)

British period pieces are full of examples of this.

I would not call them propaganda movies, rather they were trying to entertain war time folks whose lives were wrapped around current history.

Pick and choose here. Just about all of them fit the bill. (Many up on YouTube.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_films
Alphabetical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_films

(And yes, there are some gems in there too.)

 

I disagree on Monuments Men.

I don't know about the critic's expectations but it was much better than I expected, after reading the previews (and seeing who the director was).

I really liked the book and the move was nothing at all like it but it was still very entertaining, for me, anyway.

 

The reviews savaged "monuments Men" in the first week. Elsewhere I have defended it at lenghth.
Disapointing was a word that kept creeping in. Also with that cast many viewers seemed to expect a comedy (John Goodman, Jean Dujardins and Bill Murray!) and were disapointed it didn't have more schtick.
Others thought it was too light weight. Oh, that main title theme! Too Henry Mancini not enough Michael Kamen...

My point is that it will never achieve 'classic" or "great" status after those opening reviews. And it did not achieve the box office needed to clinch it as a popular success the way stuff like "A League of their Own" did.

I agree we should add films that do not age well. Some American movies are rather corn ball. (Lets go get hem nips and Krauts!) "Fighting Seabees" is rather over the top.

 

You have some interesting movies on that list Slipdigit - Is Paris Burning? and Caine Mutiny in particular.

Not many people would put "The Caine Mutiny" (I assume you are not refering to the Robert Altman film adaptation of the play) on a list of disapointing movies. With Bogart's final and Oscar Winning performance at its center. "Caine mutiny was considered at the time, a great success.

I can see what you are saying about Paris Burning... It has such a strange and confusing political subject (the different factions in the French-Paris resistance)... It also was shot biligualy and badly overdubbed... It's a very flawed movie to be sure and deserves a place on the "disapointing" list. Well done!

re: "Force ten From Navarone" was a great disapointment for fans of the Gregory Peck-David Niven movie. As a sequel it sucked eggs. It had none of the grandeur or flaire that the first movie had. As an adaptation of the book it was crap. One of those movies where they steal the title and one or two plot elements and go off and do something. And why not? Guy Hamilton of James Bond fame was used to doing this with the famous franchise. Many of the super spy's adventure had little to do with the Fleming novels they were taken from.

 

Born on the Fourth of July. Self-indulgent BS

 

You are high!!!
You need to watch it as an adult and you need to watch Cider House Rules.

 

You can't just look at it as a "War Movie".
It's the dichotomy of the war in it's most simple form : Two competing ideologies fighting over arbitrary things with presupposed notions of the other's culture.

 

Beware the word dichotomy. As Inigo Montoya says: "This word. I thinks it does not mean what you think it means". The two mutually exclusive parts of a dichotomy are supposed to be complementary. Are you SURE Mr. Head that these two fit that paradigm?

 

Three things:
1. I have a command of the English language and I know what a dichotomy is; that's why I used the word.

2. You obviously have never seen the movie

3. Watch your tone

 

I truly meant no offense, sir. My confusion over your word usage is genuine.

Your statement was unclear to me and used a word that is... erudite (?) (in the sense that I know no one who uses dichotomy in casual conversation and no one who even writes it. To me it is a bookish sort of word... )

As a francophone I concede perhaps I do not master the english language as well as you and require a lesson should you care enough to give me one.

When I looked it up (and I did look it up before writing my questionable reply) I got -





1.

division into two parts or classifications, esp when they are sharply distinguished or opposed: the dichotomy between eastern and western cultures

2.

logic the division of a class into two mutually exclusive subclasses: the dichotomy of married and single people

(from dictionary.reference.com, my emphasis)

and

"A division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different:" (Meriam-Webster) In Wikipedia they go on to write: "The two parts thus formed are complements". (Which I sort of got, opposed and mutually exclusive but complementary - I am a married man after all !)

Your phrase says the "dichotomy of war" ... So the division or contrast of war (?) "into its most simple form" ... ? and that's where I got lost... But I did get the second part of the statement (Two competing ideologies, etc. ) and think it describes the movie very well.

"usage Dichotomy should always refer to a division of some kind into two groups. It is sometimes used to refer to a puzzling situation which seems to involve a contradiction, but this use is generally thought to be incorrect" (from dictionary.reference.com)

And yes I have seen the movie, though not recently.

American navy man and Japanese soldier wash up on a deserted island and go on to play power politics and beat the crap out of each other for two hours. It's like Robinson Crusoe, with Mifune as "Friday". (reminded me of "Man Friday" starring Richard Rountree and Peter O'Toole)

So, again, sorry for giving offense.

 

It depends on "why" one is disappointed ,thus on "what" one was expecting.Most movies are disappointing,because, the main reason to make a movie is to make money,and,as movies are very expensive,they are conforming to the lowest level of the average possible spectator,who wants crap,thus ,he gets crap .

 

Harsh words, but essentially true. Even film makers of integrity want to keep making movies. As a matter of survival then they have to keep their investors' interests in mind. So one of their main reasons to make movies DOES become to make money. Depressing.

On the other hand, a really good movie can be inspiring in ways a book cannot match. movies appeal to a far more viceral part of our brains. The part that reacts instinctively and emotionally to what it sees and hears. The empathic part that goes "ooh noooo!" when someone we like dies. the "fight or flight" part that flinches to an explosion, or the sound of gun fire.

 

Yes,but there is a difference between a movie (=fiction) and reality .

As such, I have no problem if a movie is fictionalizing a real event;we all need fiction,to sustain reality : all those middle-aged women who were crying at the love scene of Titanic,would return to reality after the end of the film= annoying children, an indifferent husband,etc.
But,the problem is that a lot of people can't make the difference between the movie and reality : they have seen Titanic,the Longest Day,etc,and are convinced that that is reality,which it isn't.

Schindler's list, Cleopatra, Ben Hur,etc,etc,are fiction,playing on our emotions to make money .

Movies are show-business :and business is the most important word .

 

The first definition is all the further you needed to look

You had two branches of the same organism: American and Japanese are both human beings.
Bifurcated by their ideologies: Buddhist and Christian.

Their struggle on the island is a microcosm of the war; instead of Armies and Navies competing you have two men fighting for logs and water that are willing to kill one another.( The metaphor of territory and natural resources is obvious)

IT is only when they work together do they win and get off the island; albeit only to a larger island.

The movie ends with the base argument: "You believe in God don't ya" The underlying message is that western civilization will never understand other cultures and vice versa. The language difference symbolizes the lack of comprehension and unwillingness to change.

War does divide people into two groups: Allied and Axis

You need to look at the movie again; it I much more introspective and cerebral than any twist on Robinson Crusoe. As both Mifune and Marvin take turns being subjugated by the other.

The moral of the movie is: The only way to survive is to get long regardless of our differences.

 

I know a few Vietnam vets who would disagree with you. I agree, the movie was overdone dramatically, but it's aim was to promote the mistreatment of wounded American GI's.