Rip Apart A Movie, ANY MOVIE

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

ChupathingyX:

*Why does Princess Yue's hair look like a penis?

The one thing I remember throughout my life: That giant penis that welcomed the Avatar...

OT: Highlander 2 - The Quickening

Just... Why? You can literally ask this question after every second sentence and get a plothole with it.

bartholen:

- Why are we supposed to care about the main character whose character arc goes: he's badass, he's badass, he's badass and then he dies? In fact, why are we supposed to care about any of the characters?

Well, clearly you don't get that movie. You forgot one big part of his character arc:

He has a badass beard.

But yeah, this movie is donkus. But in my opinion: Entertaining donkus. First off, like you mentioned it is based on Millers comic and Miller is just 'slightly' insane this days (Are you retarded or what? I'm the goddamn Batman!). Then by modern standards it looks like shit, even for the standards back then it didn't look very good.

But man, it is just that one bro movie aside of Caligula that I get out when I just want to have something everyone knows in the background that adds to the evening (with all those stupid phrases).

Living Contradiction:

Such a comment begs clarification. Bring on the supernaturally deplorable!

alright then. You asked for it.

A slasher film called "Killers in the Woods." I had a phase in my life a few years back where I gorged on cult/gonzo low budget horror and action flicks. I stuck to the light stuff at first like Andy Sidaris flicks, the odd bad 80's anime, grindhouse films, and blaxploitation. I thought I was so hip. Then this....thing got sent to me.

I'm not even going to give you my full words, I'm going to give you the words of Nathan Shumate, a fellow connesuir that I was in touch with and talked about such flicks with. He said it sooooo much better than I did.

So Sariah, my five-year-old, decided to put on a puppet show. She got behind the couch with eight-year-old Jason and two-year-old Emma and a collection of puppets and stuffed animals out of the toybox. There was a quick discussion as she outlined her plot idea to Jason, and then up came the puppets. There was a crazy-eyed cow whose mother, a pig (Piglet, in fact), told her every day to be nice to people she met. Then she'd go out, meet some other puppet or animal, and eat it. She'd go home and her mother would gently scold her. And from time to time Jason would stick up a rubber carnotaur puppet from a Dinosaur Happy Meal and announce, "She's getting fat!" And Sariah would stand up and say, "That's not part of the story." And there was much giggling both behind the couch and in front of it, where Michele and I were sitting.
I tell that story here for two reasons:
1) The production values and storytelling skill displayed from behind our couch dwarfed those present in Killers in the Woods.
2) I would rather be telling you about almost anything other than how badly Killers in the Woods sucked. There is a permanent warp in the fabric of spacetime centered on my DVD player, thanks to the naked singularity of suckage contained on this one innocuous-looking DVD-R.
It could be worse, though. Instead of telling you about it, I could be watching it again. I put myself to sleep last night counting all of the things I'd rather do than watch Killers in the Woods a second time. The list included "watching an octogenarian nun stripper" and "eating a raw kitten." And while I entertain the notion that watching an octogenarian nun stripper while eating a raw kitten might conceivably be worse than Killers in the Woods, the point is far from proven.

You may think I'm being mean. You're wrong. Frankly, I don't know if I could be mean to this movie. I'm not at all confident that words could be strung together in any way which might present this movie as being worse than it is. Even referring to it by convention as a "movie" is an undeserved compliment; at best, what occurs between the fragmentary opening and closing credits qualifies as "footage." At worst, it's such a violation of all social and artistic standards that no amount of money could bribe even Kofi Annan to look the other way.
And I can lambaste and denigrate this "feature" with a clear conscience. Because when Nick Yale, the producer (and director, I can only surmise from the vague credits) contacted me repeatedly and offered me a screener, I took a look at the website, where the main appeal of the movie was proudly shown to be "Killers! In the woods! There's women! And they get killed! In the woods! Buy it today!" I told him, You don't want to send this to me. Everything I see about this movie leads me to believe I will hate it passionately. Please don't make me prove it. But he insisted, whether out of the stunning delusion that there's an iota of entertainment to be had on the once-pristine DVD-R he ruined to send to me, or perhaps because he hates me. Yes, I have to believe that's it. Somehow, somewhere, without meaning to, I have done something which engendered the fury and loathing of Nick Yale, and the most fitting form of revenge he could design was to put together this horrendous misuse of the very concept of cinema, laying his every last shred of self-respect (as well as that of everyone he knew, all dozen or so of them) on the altar of his hatred.
Eventually I'll have to stop dealing with ancillary matters and describe the movie to some degree, won't I? Very well. Although there's really damnably little to tell. I've complained before about movies being light on plot, but this one is absolutely plot-free. It's more like a single scene or scenario playing out repeatedly, with minor variations.

To wit: Our, um, protagonist (I'm guessing Phil Heath) accosts a woman. It could be in her back yard, or on her doorstep, but most likely it's (duh) in the woods. He incapacitates her by strangling her or beating her. There's a long, lingering shot as she lies unconscious. Then he kills her. Another long, lingering shot, perhaps with some slight convulsions. Repeat ad nauseum.
You may think I'm glossing over the plot, but really, that's all there is. In between these scenes, we've got snippets of footage of our killer sitting on a couch, talking directly into the camera. No, there's no character development or larger context here; he just adlibs stuff about how much be enjoys killing women. He looks like a balding Lou Costello. Perhaps for some viewers that makes the character seem more disturbing, an average joe like people living on your own block who might harbor dark fantasies of mass murder. However, with characterization being at such a low ebb, I can't separate the character from the eager performer, and thus I can only see him... as sad. Sad, pitiful, small-souled, believing that poorly-shot scenes of women being unimaginatively killed are worth the time he spent making it, or the time I spent watching it.
And they are poorly-shot scenes, too; I'm not just decrying the lack of anything resembling a narrative. It's a consumer-grade digital camcorder, pointed vaguely in the direction of the ad-libbed action, and edited using every preset transition effect in the desktop editing suite. I would be embarrassed if the high school special needs class couldn't produce something more professional with the resources at hand.

If I were a drinking man, I could at least have found solace in a simple drinking game: Every time our starring killer knocks or strangles or drugs a woman unconscious, then immediately starts nudging her and patting her cheeks and telling her to wake up, take a drink. I could have been besotted and oblivious by the hour mark. But no, I experienced the whole thing stone-cold sober.
The music? Ooh, I get to play good news/bad news here. The good news is that the music is better than the single-note Casio soundtracks that some micro-budget features make do with. The bad news (and, dependably, the bad far outweighs the good) is that the musical selections seem to have been chosen at random, without any regard to mood or atmosphere or tempo. We're as likely as not to see a killing set to a tune more appropriate for recounting the community calendar on the lunchtime news broadcast. Once or twice, I almost suspected that there was some kind of wit at work here, as the music was too ridiculous to be anything more than a joke, but then I reconsidered; every other aspect of the whole was done without any apparent awareness of just how crappy it was, so in context, there's no reason to even entertain the possibility of wit at work.
And literally, that's the whole movie. Woman after woman (with the same actresses being used up to three or four times) expiring at length at the hands of Phil Heath, or in a rare occurrence, an associate who's got just as much screen charisma. There's a bizarre interlude in the middle which looks like it was shot fifteen years ago (using then-current video technology); it differs from the rest rather drastically in that it centers on what seems to be a crazy 'Nam vet, and is set in a city instead of the woods. But guess what? It's women getting killed. I'm guessing that it was scavenged footage from an earlier, never-completed project. Because what this film really needed was more padding to keep those closing credits from getting any closer.

t's possible at this point that some of you are shaking your heads and saying, "Nathan, you just don't get it. This is a fetish flick. It's not about story or plot or character, it's about disturbed dickwads getting off on the violent fantasies that make up for their personal and phallic shortcomings." And yes, I do recognize that this falls into the category of a fetish video. But here's the thing: Even by the standards that would appeal to those developmentally-challenged bottom feeders, it still doesn't succeed. The violence is laughably staged; I've seen more believable death scenes in elementary school plays. Any sick perv hoping to get his rocks off watching Sweet Young Things meet their demise here would come away with a sinking feeling in his stomach, wondering, "Whoa - am I really such a sorry excuse for a human being?" There isn't a single possible audience segment which could appreciate this flick, with the possible exception of drooling cretins who consistently lose tic-tac-toe games to paramecia.
In case I've left you wondering, "How does Killers in the Woods compare to other movies Nathan's hated?" let me state in no uncertain terms: To my knowledge, this is the worst piece of banal flotsam masquerading as a motion picture which has ever been inflicted by one putative human being upon his fellow man. Compared to this, the most self-indulgent excesses of French cinema like I Stand Alone (1998) are the pinnacle of the art and craft. Unnaturally Born Killer (1996) comes off like Citizen freaking Kane. My imagination recoils from even considering the possibility that a worse misuse of the medium of cinema could exist.

Yes folks. And people here saying 300 was the worst movie? Ah don't think so....

Casual Shinji:
The directing is actually really, really good. Edgar Wright already showed he had some chops for directing action with Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, but with Scott Pilgrim he shows himself to be quite an amazing action director. There's great fuidity and heft to the action scenes, despite how over the top it is. And the editing is very snappy, too.

The colourful cartoony visuals mix incredibly well with the stark realism of the live-action setting, but I reckon that's all thanks to Bill Pope who was the director of photography.

The problem I have with the movie, which is ultimately a big one, is how the characters are all too cool for school and totally blasé about everything. I know this is to reinforce this kind of laid back attitude, but if the characters don't seem to really care about anything, why should I feel emotionally invested? The only character I genuinely liked was Knives. She was the only character who had any real passion and emotion. She was also the only one who had an arc; She goes from shy school girl, to manic groupie, to jilted lover/stalker. Everyone else just seemed to meander in their own hipsteriness.

Also, Scott and Ramona have zero onscreen chemistry. Micheal Cera has no range beyond awkward schlump and Mary Elizabeth Winstead has the personality of a paper cup. They should've got the guy who plays the lead singer of the band to play Scott. He had some great energy to him.

Fair praise and fair criticism. If I hadn't been such a fan of the books I may not have reacted to the film as violently as I did. That hipster blankness you're talking about is indeed a problem in the film, and that's either bad direction or the inability of the actors to understand their characters. There are a lot of deadpan lines and stares in the books, but O'Malley manages to convey quite a lot of emotion in his characters eyes despite simple drawings. About the only character who is frequently deadpan is Wallace.

They really did alter the characters significantly though. Scott has gone from being a hapless but adorable lady killer to a simpering geek (really, the major conflict resolution in the books is Scott being revealed as an unreliable narrator, and a perpetual womanizer, and his realization of THIS is what makes him "grow up", not getting a job or moving in with someone). Kim has gone from a snarky, bitter ex "Pining" for Scott to just snarky and bitter for absolutely no discernible reason. Stephen Stills had one of his smaller personality traits (his nervousness/neuroses about performing) blown up and turned into his entire character. Knives, whose role dwindled rapidly as the books went on, became a major character and the focal point of the entire resolution and new theme they felt obligated to ship in for some ungodly reason.

I did like Brandon Routh as Todd though. He came pretty close to nailing Todd. Their Envy, alas, was HORRIBLE. Way to nail a minor character and screw up yet another major one, film.

Anyway, it's hardly the worst film of all time, but it's up there amongst the most disappointing for me. It's the ME3 ending of films.

Marter:

Quaxar:
OT: So... about Scorpion King 3...
I kid of course, this forum is a dictatorship when it comes to contrary opinions to this particular film. But I feel like giving Marter that second of shock was worth it if he should ever stumble into here.

I did have a mini heart attack when I was reading through the thread and totally not participating because apparently I've been barred from doing so.

I love how "stumble" was the word you used. Very fitting. :)

Marter I said you were exempt, I never said you couldn't participate.

bartholen:
300 THREE THOUSAND TIMES!!!!!!

I've been waiting so long for an excuse to display my loathing for this movie in full online, and now you've given me it. Thank you.

- Why are we supposed to care about the main character whose character arc goes: he's badass, he's badass, he's badass and then he dies? In fact, why are we supposed to care about any of the characters?
- Why do people praise its visuals when it looks like it was made by 10 people with a green screen in someone's living room? Seriously, it looks like shit!
- Why is it said to be super-violent and gory when all the blood spatter looks like someone edited it in with MS Paint's spray tool in post-production?
- Why is the movie almost 2 hours long? All that happens in it is this: the spartans get cross, and then they go fighting. They go fighting and then they die. That's it.
- Why are we supposed to think the persians are evil? The only direct evidence we have is that weird "tree of corpses" bit. Everything else we hear is spoken by the spartans, who throw weak babies down cliffs. Yeah, totally the good guys. And Xerxes actually treats the misformed guy decently, rather than dismissing him as some lower form of human being.
- The fight scenes are even less exciting than in Sucker Punch. At least in SP (a boring piece of shite also) you had some sense that the characters were in possible danger. In 300, all the spartans have basically god mode on. It's boring.
- I know it's based on a Frank Miller comic book, but its philosophy is still repulsive. The men who want to help them are viewed as second class citizens and the only role they serve is being a distraction to the Immortals. And all the spartans act like 13-year olds watching a super-violent movie "WHOOAAA ISN'T THAT COOL AREN'T WE BADASS PHWOAAAARRR??!?!?!!!"

For the record, I tried watching it again with a twist: every time I thought the movie wasn't any good, I took a shot of absinthe. It ended with me vomiting on my friend's floor without finishing the movie. 300 is probably the worst film I have ever seen, competing with Sex and the City 2.

You're welcome? I guess.

me'sa says Star wars: the Phantom Menace

Why?

Just Why??

WoW Killer:
I feel like cheating and pasting a link, just because this is the funniest film critique I've ever heard:

"You're not going to get a rant about this...", ha!

Ummm, one of my own... has nobody said Prometheus yet?

Ok, here's my issue: it doesn't have a plot. What it is is a collection of side-plots. None of the characters have any kind of development. You've got all sorts of tiny little themes going on - Fassbender's status as a lifeform and the analogy of him being engineered by humans, Theron's relationship with her father, the general theme of motherhood particularly with respect Rapace's character - none of this developed or focused on. There is no conclusion. Nothing amounts to anything. The whole sequence of events feels utterly irrelevant, and that's exactly how you end up feeling about the film.

Reginald D Hunter did a hilarious skit in a stand up show on the same film, I couldn't find it on youtube, but it's near the end of his live in London DVD

GunsmithKitten:

A slasher film called "Killers in the Woods." I had a phase in my life a few years back where I gorged on cult/gonzo low budget horror and action flicks. I stuck to the light stuff at first like Andy Sidaris flicks, the odd bad 80's anime, grindhouse films, and blaxploitation. I thought I was so hip. Then this....thing got sent to me.

Please tell me you killed it. Please tell me you killed it and burned the remains so that the horrors could not be inflicted upon the unsuspecting or the naive. Because otherwise I'm going to live in fear that one day someone will slip it into my computer and leave me permanently scarred.

The Expendables 2

-Boring
-Old guys shooting form the hip and not aiming
-stupid jokes, with terrible timing
-stupid fight's
-the only real action hero leaves 15 minutes in
-again boring

As much as I enjoyed the actual film, The Dark Knight Rises really annoyed me at the end with the whole Bane/Talia reveal. The whole film he is built up as this super genius, perfect anti-Bat character, and then right at the end. Bang. He gets completely de-clawed.

Living Contradiction:

GunsmithKitten:

A slasher film called "Killers in the Woods." I had a phase in my life a few years back where I gorged on cult/gonzo low budget horror and action flicks. I stuck to the light stuff at first like Andy Sidaris flicks, the odd bad 80's anime, grindhouse films, and blaxploitation. I thought I was so hip. Then this....thing got sent to me.

Please tell me you killed it. Please tell me you killed it and burned the remains so that the horrors could not be inflicted upon the unsuspecting or the naive. Because otherwise I'm going to live in fear that one day someone will slip it into my computer and leave me permanently scarred.

We did what we could, citizen, but...keep watching the skies. There's rumors in the schlock watchers that a sequel was made...

Blindness.

Interesting plot but done STUPIDLY. In the movie, this one city has a epidemic of people going blind. So they are quarantined in this abandoned mental hospital which a small group decide to hold up all the food they were given from the others so the others have to pay them in tribute. With whatever they have left, and forcing woman to please them.

But the main reason why no one does anything is due to one of the guys having a gun. Thats right, a newly blind guy is going to use a gun...BULLSHIT! Oh get this, one of the group, a woman can see. She does NOTHING at all but let all these horror acts happen. Until the very end when they start a fire and burn mostly the other guys.

Just..retarded.

The last two movies I saw (zabriskie point and la vallée) weren't great. But I've seen worse. Evil bong 3 was a pile of turd and I've probably seen movies with (albeit slightly) less merits than that! But, being a gaming forum I thought I'd mention an Uwe Boll film that sucked:
Alone in the dark.

At least the title is fitting. It has action scenes where you CANT SEE ANYTHING because its shot IN THE DARK. Mainly, its so generic with its chase scenes and absurd plot that its just TOTALLY FORGETABLE. Which is the worst thing when watching a film. Hells, I've seen house of the dead multiple times as its so bad its funny. Alone in the dark is just bland. You cringe without laughing. You watch Tara Reid with glasses on trying to act smart (and it doesn't work). The monsters are ripped out of predator. Its just...urgh

Two things that always wound me up was in Harry Potter when the big old Wizard war was going on.

From the good guy side - where were the other wizards in the world? We see that other countries have wizards (quidditch world cup and the other schools in the triwizard tournament) but no one turns up to help try and stop Voldemort from the rest of the world.

From Voldemort's side, why did he particularly go after Britain to begin with (in the first war) when it was where Dumbledore, the only wizard who could match him, lived? Surely he should have taken over the rest of the world first...?

Tropicaz:
Two things that always wound me up was in Harry Potter when the big old Wizard war was going on.

From the good guy side - where were the other wizards in the world? We see that other countries have wizards (quidditch world cup and the other schools in the triwizard tournament) but no one turns up to help try and stop Voldemort from the rest of the world.

From Voldemort's side, why did he particularly go after Britain to begin with (in the first war) when it was where Dumbledore, the only wizard who could match him, lived? Surely he should have taken over the rest of the world first...?

First point is very valid.

Second point was covered in the books (didn't watch the films, so can't say) - Voldemort was the descendant of Slytherin and wanted to be as involved in the school as possible.

Effectively, the whole conflict stems from a failed job interview. I know that feeling.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked