Best, middle, and worst movies?

[Yukon0009]

Best: Interstellar, and Pacific Rim (as you can probably guess from my ksp stuff )

Worst: Well, Frozen. Have to agree with OP.

Those people who criticize Pacific Rim forget it's supposed to be a awesome monster vs robot film, not a sciency film with all sorts of physics that would meant that the giant robots and monsters would have collapsed.

[Columbia]

Best: Interstellar (It was rather hard to understand, but when I did, it was a very deep concept.. ) Gravity (Could be a bit more scientifically accurate, but beautiful. That re-entry scene.. ) Then again, I watched the former and latter on a Boeing 777-300ER's entertainment system.. And Titanic (Not because of the plot.. but the incredible detail they put on the reenaction. Plus, the soundtrack!)

Average: Armaggeddon (A lot of historical inaccuracies, but has a good OST.)

Worst: Frozen (My god, it's everywhere and so overly promoted that I'm just tired of hearing "LET IT GOOO" covers in every single convenience store I go to. Enough is enough.)

I don't get too perfectionist about historical inaccuracy, honestly. Except when it's really, really way off.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Columbia

[Superfluous J]

I love how everybody hates Frozen not because of anything in the movie, but because it was apparently overhyped. I luckily don't listen to the radio, hear it when I'm out (yay headphones) or watch television so I was never exposed to all that junk. I also haven't seen the movie though I figure I will eventually. But, I've never heard anybody say it was bad, before this thread.

[Columbia]

I love how everybody hates Frozen not because of anything in the movie, but because it was apparently overhyped. I luckily don't listen to the radio, hear it when I'm out (yay headphones) or watch television so I was never exposed to all that junk. I also haven't seen the movie though I figure I will eventually. But, I've never heard anybody say it was bad, before this thread.

To me, Frozen is just a regular Disney movie for kids and the like, but it's being treated as if it's the most cutting-edge and absolutely perfect movie of all time.

[Red Iron Crown]

Best: 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shawshank Redemption, The Christian Bale Batman trilogy, Dr. Strangelove

Middle: Starship Troopers (I know it's cheesy and not all that like the book, I still like it anyway)

Worst: Twilight. So bad I stopped watching anything vampire-related since seeing it.

I liked Frozen. Complaining about plot holes in kids' movies is silly, it has some catchy songs and good jokes which is enough. It's become one of those "popular things it's cool to hate".

[RAINCRAFTER]

Best: Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, Up (the Pixar movie).

Middle: Frozen.

Worst: Cars 2. "Oh, I wonder if this is going to be as good as Toy Story 2 compared to Toy Story 1!"

[DestinyPlayer]

Best: Interstellar (Because come on, it's great!), Kamen Rider Kabuto: God Speed Love (Because yep.)

Middle: Ender's game (Dunno, it was really good, but didn't hit me as much as the top movies.), Terminator: Genesis (Pretty nice, actually.)

Worst: The Last Airbender (Great series, awful movie.), something else so terrible I can't even remember it.

[PakledHostage]

Best: Up (the Pixar movie).

I was just thinking about that one in light of all the mentions of Frozen... Up is definitely one of my favorite animated films.

[Plume & Akakak]

I love how everybody hates Frozen not because of anything in the movie, but because it was apparently overhyped. I luckily don't listen to the radio, hear it when I'm out (yay headphones) or watch television so I was never exposed to all that junk. I also haven't seen the movie though I figure I will eventually. But, I've never heard anybody say it was bad, before this thread.

I liked Frozen. Complaining about plot holes in kids' movies is silly, it has some catchy songs and good jokes which is enough. It's become one of those "popular things it's cool to hate".

I agree with you. Everyone at home enjoyed Frozen for what it is.

In an opposite way, Interstellar has become one of those "popular things it's cool to praise", despite its flaws.

I'm not surprised it is that much represented in this thread and would not say it is a bad movie, - it's actually nice -, but it doesn't stand the comparison with the two pillars he's openly paying an homage (or "paying an outrage", for some) to, 2001, A Space Odyssey by Kubrick and Solaris by Andreï Tarkovsky.

Interstellar is quite a mix of different cinematographic genres (mashups are trendy, I know), and can mainly be enjoyed when seen as a "big show" : it has no fixed standpoint, cinematographic choices and plot solidity regularly fade out along the movie in favour of spectacularity and sentimentalism. It's a likeable visual burger but it can't be compared to the uncompromising character of its two main references.

It seemed to me that some citations of Kubrick and Tarkovsky were mostly used to satisfy the viewer, for the geeky pleasure of noticing them. It's something very common in modern blockbusters, and I felt it was similar - yet wrapped in a classier package - to that Star Wars' stormtrooper shout you can recognize in many movies when a character falls from a great height.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Comparing Jonathan Nolan with Arthur C. Clarke and Stanislaw Lem is kinda silly anyway. I don't think they are pursuing the same goal.

Personally, the setting of yet another dying Earth annoyed me. Our social anxieties are profitable fantasies, but these worries are getting exploited to the bone. It's time we move to something else.

And I admit I'm growing unimpressed with Jonathan Nolan's "snap-of-the-fingers outcomes".

The film's soundtrack left me with the same impression : Hans Zimmer did a sensationalist revisitation of Philip Glass, which, after all, fits the movie well.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Plume & Akakak

[Kinglet]

Best: 2001: A space odyssey

Middle: Interstellar: essentially boiled down into a constant boring struggle with cool effects.

Worst: Rio 2: So bad nobody noticed it came out

[Flymetothemun]

I love how everybody hates Frozen not because of anything in the movie, but because it was apparently overhyped. I luckily don't listen to the radio, hear it when I'm out (yay headphones) or watch television so I was never exposed to all that junk. I also haven't seen the movie though I figure I will eventually. But, I've never heard anybody say it was bad, before this thread.

That's the same with me; I don't hate the movie itself, dislike it yes, but I think it was incredibly overhyped. The advertisement division of Disney jumped the shark with how much advertising & movie toys there were. Though, they took away Maelstrom in Disney Epcot, which was essentially a water boat ride based around a condensed history of Norway, and replaced it with a Frozen ride, and I was mad at that because that was the only ride at Disney that was slow, quiet, and calm enough for it to be pleasant. It probably has so much sound and light show in it now that I wouldn't like it.

In short, it's a kid's drawing that being treated like a freaking Picasso.

[MrWalrus123]

Best:Interstellar/2001/Hitchhickers guide to the galaxy

middle:???

worst:foodfight/birdemic/sharknado

[CelticCossack51]

Best: Interstellar, Gravity, The Lego Movie

Middle: The A-Team

Worst: Percy Jackson and the Olympians 1 and 2 (I like the Percy Jackson books, but once you see the movies...), Scorpion King 4 (too cheesy, I predicted the [exaggeration]whole[/exaggeration] plot

[NFUN]

Best: Probably the Godfather, whichever of Tarantino's movies I'm in the mood for*, or the Room.

Middle: Battlefield Earth. It didn't live up to its horrible rating, I didn't hate it, but I remember it. It was special because at all points it was overwhelmingly mediocre, each aspect 4 or 5 out of 10. The acting wasn't great, but wasn't hilariously bad, the plot was silly but not ridiculous, the effects completely unmemorable. At some points I was even slightly engaged. It was so bland as to be noteworthy.

Worst: Freddy Got Fingered or Theodore Rex. The former because it was vulgar and just awful, the latter because I was thoroughly confused throughout the whole thing.

*favorite movies, not best movies

[dryer_lint]

In an opposite way, Interstellar has become one of those "popular things it's cool to praise", despite its flaws.

Interstellar? Popular and cool to praise?

Hahahahahahhaha

I liked the movie, didn't love it, but it wasn't that popular at all.

[Plume & Akakak]

Interstellar? Popular and cool to praise?

Hahahahahahhaha

I liked the movie, didn't love it, but it wasn't that popular at all.

Seems we sort of agree on this movie's enjoyableness. It's better than nothing.

But please shorten your train of "ha".

I've heard cinema students praising the film, arguing that its end is as "what the f*ck" as the last part of 2001 (a statement I found worrying for their understanding of 2001). And I've read enough paeans when Interstellar was out to feel embarrassed. Not in the most reliable press, sure, but weren't we talking about popular culture ? Things come in extravagant attires before they die pretty fast in pop culture, but I find it interesting that Interstellar is that much represented here, in a thread populated by science-fiction enthusiasts ; science-fiction being not a niche market currently, but a part of a very mainstream, so-called "geek" culture.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Plume & Akakak

[windows_x_seven]

worst:foodfight/birdemic/sharknado

By the way, there's a Birdemic 2.

[Kinglet]

Seems we sort of agree on this movie's enjoyableness. It's better than nothing.

But please shorten your train of "ha".

I've heard cinema students praising the film, arguing that its end is as "what the f*ck" as the last part of 2001 (a statement I found preoccupying for their understanding of 2001). And I've read enough paeans when Interstellar was out to feel embarrassed. Not in the most reliable press, sure, but weren't we talking about popular culture ? Things come in extravagant attires before dying pretty fast in pop culture, but I find it interesting that Interstellar is that much represented here, in a thread populated by science-fiction enthusiasts ; science-fiction being not a niche market currently, but a part of a very mainstream, so-called "geek" culture.

Which is unfortunate, since the whole "geek" thing is just a fad right now. Most people who watch mainstream sci-if probably aren't even interested in spaceflight and have no idea of orbital mechanics.

[dryer_lint]

Seems we sort of agree on this movie's enjoyableness. It's better than nothing.

But please shorten your train of "ha".

I've heard cinema students praising the film, arguing that its end is as "what the f*ck" as the last part of 2001 (a statement I found preoccupying for their understanding of 2001). And I've read enough paeans when Interstellar was out to feel embarrassed. Not in the most reliable press, sure, but weren't we talking about popular culture ? Things come in extravagant attires before dying pretty fast in pop culture, but I find it interesting that Interstellar is that much represented here, in a thread populated by science-fiction enthusiasts ; science-fiction being not a niche market currently, but a part of a very mainstream, so-called "geek" culture.

I dunno... before the movie came out, I was really excited about it, as were a bunch of other people. Now, everyone throws around references and people say they like the music, but apart from this forum, I haven't seen too much praise for it. Usually, it's because​ of how unrealistic it is that people don't like it.

[NFUN]

Which is unfortunate, since the whole "geek" thing is just a fad right now. Most people who watch mainstream sci-if probably aren't even interested in spaceflight and have no idea of orbital mechanics.

Though I agree that 'geek' culture is a fad*, many people interested in geeky things probably don't know much about orbital mechanics or quantum physics or comic books or whatever specific area you like. It's a big tent, don't get hung up on purity tests. Also, we're getting a bit off topic; the thread is about "Best middle and worst movies".

*I hate the aforementioned purity tests, but the Big Bang Theory? Really?

[Cydonian Monk]

This is an interesting thought experiment. The theatre and film kid in me wants to rate things based on techincal and artistic aspects, ie: best overall film, whereas the person in me wants to play favorites. My favorite is simple. Worst is simple, with a catch that I'll explain below. Best? That's hard.

I'll limit this to films I've seen 100% of.

Favorite: Bridge on the River Kwai. Just a fantastic movie by one of the best in the industry, deliberate historical innacuracies aside. Well made, it was well paced before they cut out the intermission when they "restored" it, and really does well to capture all sides of the situation (more than I can say for the book).

Best: I have to agree with IMDB here. The Shawshank Redemption is one of the best films, both in production and artistic quality, that I've ever seen.

Middle: Groundhog Day. Probably the most average film of all time, but one I could still watch over and over and over. They say we're young and we don't know....

Worst: A student film I watched at an unnamed school in an unnoted year. I don't want to make the kid feel bad, so anonymity is preserved here to protect the hopefully unemployed (as a director).

Worst: Transformers: Age of Extinction. This has bumped Battlefield Earth off my list as Worst of All Time.

There are probably lots of mediocre and throughly terrible films that I've not seen that would replace some of the above, but it is what it is.

[Cydonian Monk]

Middle: Starship Troopers (I know it's cheesy and not all that like the book, I still like it anyway)

There's a part of me that says Verhoeven's works are satirical masterpieces, and then there's a part of me that says he was just clueless. I can go either way on his other big sci-fi films (Robocop and Total Recall), but Doogie Howzer: Space "1940s-German-Bad-Guy" was so far from the book Starship Troopers that it completely flew around the point and made its own, new point. If anything it was satire on Heinlein's peculiar worldview. For that reason I can look at it as its own work. (Unlike Ender's Game, which just completely missed all the important points of the book and didn't try in the least to be original.)

That said, Starship Troopers is a fun flick.

Comparing Jonathan Nolan with Arthur C. Clarke and Stanislaw Lem is kinda silly anyway. I don't think they are pursuing the same goal.

I'm going to disagree here. While Clarke was focused more on the technical aspects of science fiction, Lem and Nolan are or were both heavy into the psychological nature of their works. If anything I think Nolan is very much like Lem (though he obviously works with a different medium), yet perhaps even more like a certain famous sci-fi author who's name rhymes with Phillip K. "Rick". That said, my reading of Lem is limited to what had been translated into English and was legal for import to the US in the mid-late 1990s. I've not read any of his works in the native tongue nor have I "made the rounds" through any of his works translated in this millennium. I'll get back to him once I'm done rereading the Mars Trilogy and enjoying modern Chinese sci-fi.

[Plume & Akakak]

[...] science-fiction being not a niche market currently, but a part of a very mainstream, so-called "geek" culture.

Which is unfortunate, since the whole "geek" thing is just a fad right now. Most people who watch mainstream sci-fi probably aren't even interested in spaceflight and have no idea of orbital mechanics.

I'll follow NFUN : I try to keep some distance with the part of me that wants to belong to a club. Science-fiction probably never was that much of a niche market, to be fair. I just meant there has been an expanding popular enthusiasm for SF in the last few years, pushed, among other explanations, by "geek culture". (It's not the main reason in my opinion, and I'm not sure this particular reason is a fad, future will tell.)

Anyway, if this means widening the audience of a multifaceted genre and increasing the number of its readers, well it's all good.

Also, I do feel out of the club when it comes to orbital mechanics. I do on this forum. The little knowledge I have of astrophysics comes from attending science popularization lectures, reading popularization press, and recently from Kerbal Space Program.

I was attracted at first to authors who were mainly focused on the social, symbolic or psychological aspects, like Herbert, K. "Rick" (ok, I get it now), Lem... I admit I have a very French tendency to take astrophysical phenomena as metaphors of social mechanisms.

There's a part of me that says Verhoeven's works are satirical masterpieces, and then there's a part of me that says he was just clueless. I can go either way on his other big sci-fi films (Robocop and Total Recall), but Doogie Howzer: Space "1940s-German-Bad-Guy" was so far from the book Starship Troopers that it completely flew around the point and made its own, new point. If anything it was satire on Heinlein's peculiar worldview. For that reason I can look at it as its own work. (Unlike Ender's Game, which just completely missed all the important points of the book and didn't try in the least to be original.)

That said, Starship Troopers is a fun flick.

I share your view. Verhoeven's direction is so rigid and unsensual that it often gives the impression of being clumsy. But I really appreciate how heavy-handed he can be, he's taking blockbuster ways and strips them down, reducing a complicated dance to a set of robotic yet accurate poses. It is interesting that it didn't prevent Starship Troopers from being euphoriant.

This nudity may explain the awkward feelings Verhoeven's movies can inspire. They are formally rather obscene.

Comparing Jonathan Nolan with Arthur C. Clarke and Stanislaw Lem is kinda silly anyway. I don't think they are pursuing the same goal.

I'm going to disagree here. While Clarke was focused more on the technical aspects of science fiction, Lem and Nolan are or were both heavy into the psychological nature of their works. If anything I think Nolan is very much like Lem (though he obviously works with a different medium), yet perhaps even more like a certain famous sci-fi author who's name rhymes with Phillip K. "Rick". That said, my reading of Lem is limited to what had been translated into English and was legal for import to the US in the mid-late 1990s. I've not read any of his works in the native tongue nor have I "made the rounds" through any of his works translated in this millennium. I'll get back to him once I'm done rereading the Mars Trilogy and enjoying modern Chinese sci-fi.

You're right, like Lem, Jonathan Nolan's angle is metaphorical and psychological. But I think there is a difference in subtelty, and perhaps accuracy. Interstellar shows a set of characters reduced to great, emotional lines.

I think neither the Nolans, nor the hundreds of scenarists armed with PhDs in litterature and cinema working for big studios are idiots. There is a difference in how these aspects are treated.

Coming to my mind is Lem's reaction to Soderbergh's adaptation of Solaris (which I didn't dislike). In fairness, it has to be noted that Lem apparently made this statement while admitting he didn't saw the movie : "[...] to my best knowledge, the book was not dedicated to erotic problems of people in outer space. [...] This is why the book was entitled "Solaris" and not "Love in Outer Space"."

Edited August 9, 2015 by Plume & Akakak
traditional edit in traditional edit outfit.

[NFUN]

Middle: Groundhog Day. Probably the most average film of all time, but one I could still watch over and over and over. They say we're young and we don't know....

I'm with Ebert on this one. There's a reason you can rewatch it so many times.