Worst movie you ever saw?

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by CanadianCowboysFan

Oh I know that, but it doesn't mean he could act. His movies for the most part were simple plots where he pretty much could have grunted throughout and his fans would have loved it.

Oh I agree with that. Simple plots. Wayne ended up the live (or sometimes dead) hero at the end and Wayne fans feel better about themselves and the world in general... at least for a brief time.

Wayne's persona fit like a glove with what many in the movie going public wanted in the 40's, 50's and 60's. There are just some people and things resonate with folks at a particular point in time, but at another point in time there probably wouldn't be the fascination.

My wife doesn't "get" John Wayne. But she like James Arness of "Gunsmoke" fame– go figure.

[Hopeuhavechange]

Originally Posted by CanadianCowboysFan

Oh I know that, but it doesn't mean he could act. His movies for the most part were simple plots where he pretty much could have grunted throughout and his fans would have loved it.

Oh. Okay. Nothing quite so persuasive as hyperbole. Of course his movies tended to have simple plot lines. They were western flicks where nuance was eschewed in favor of straightforward, traditional morality plays and extolling old fashioned values on screen. Plainly and simply. That people believed so firmly he was the folksy Western persona he put forth is testament that he could, in fact, act. IMVHO. Let's not pretend acting is something it's not.

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by Hopeuhavechange

Oh. Okay. Nothing quite so persuasive as hyperbole. Of course his movies tended to have simple plot lines. They were western flicks where nuance was eschewed in favor of straightforward, traditional morality plays and extolling old fashioned values on screen. Plainly and simply. That people believed so firmly he was the folksy Western persona he put forth is testament that he could, in fact, act. IMVHO. Let's not pretend acting is something it's not.

And there's a difference between over-acting/bad acting and a bad movie.

I think many would agree that a bad movie is one that you regret having sat through.

There are many movies that the acting was great like "Amadeus" but were a real snoozer. And there are many where the acting wasn't great but the movie was entertaining.

For the most part JW's movies hit their mark... regardless of the plot... regardless of the acting.

[Teren_Kanan]

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

Shawshank might rank as the greatest movie ever– that nobody went to see.

The movie only grossed like $16 mil during its entire box office run. Sad.

Yeah but didn't it run against Forest Gump or something? Shawshank is definitely one of the best movies. But to be honest, Forest Gump is too.

[speedkilz88]

Tim Robbins is also a terrible draw for a movie.

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by Teren_Kanan

Yeah but didn't it run against Forest Gump or something? Shawshank is definitely one of the best movies. But to be honest, Forest Gump is too.

No question Gump is an excellent movie.

But for Shawshank to only make $16 mil during its theatrical run is stunning. My gosh "Texas Chainsaw 3D" did about $30 mil (in 2012 dollars) its first week.

I think what hurt it was...

It wasn't a "chick-flick". It wasn't a movie women would have been interested in– at least not then, before everyone knew how good it was.

It wasn't a "action" movie. No explosions or ka-booms or car chases. That kept the younger males from being interested in it.

It wasn't a "comedy" so that eliminated another big chunk of the movie-going public.

The result was a movie that many couldn't easily identify with... So they didn't go to see it.

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by speedkilz88

Tim Robbins is also a terrible draw for a movie.

Yeah, great actor, terrible draw. And Morgan Freeman had a few skins on the wall from "Glory" and other flicks, but not like today. Other than those two you had an elder James Whitmore and that's about it.

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Teren_Kanan

Yeah but didn't it run against Forest Gump or something? Shawshank is definitely one of the best movies. But to be honest, Forest Gump is too.

Neither one should have won best picture, IMO.

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Neither one should have won best picture, IMO.

And which one should of?

Right now "Shawshank" is close (if not the top-rated) to being the top-rated movie on IMDb. It battles "The Godfather" for #1.

And "Gump" is in the top-20 all-time.

Hope you've got a good choice up your sleeve.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

No question Gump is an excellent movie.

But for Shawshank to only make $16 mil during its theatrical run is stunning. My gosh "Texas Chainsaw 3D" did about $30 mil (in 2012 dollars) its first week.

I think what hurt it was...

It wasn't a "chick-flick". It wasn't a movie women would have been interested in– at least not then, before everyone knew how good it was.

It wasn't a "action" movie. No explosions or ka-booms or car chases. That kept the younger males from being interested in it.

It wasn't a "comedy" so that eliminated another big chunk of the movie-going public.

The result was a movie that many couldn't easily identify with... So they didn't go to see it.

You cannot underestimate the female factor. Amistad was a better movie than Titanic but teenage girls went to Titanic over and over just for a good cry.

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by CanadianCowboysFan

You cannot underestimate the female factor. Amistad was a better movie than Titanic but teenage girls went to Titanic over and over just for a good cry.

No question the female factor is huge...

Teenage girls made James Cameron a fortune.

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

And which one should of?

Right now "Shawshank" is close (if not the top-rated) to being the top-rated movie on IMDb. It battles "The Godfather" for #1.

And "Gump" is in the top-20 all-time.

Hope you've got a good choice up your sleeve.

Pulp Fiction would have been my pick that year. Don't get me wrong, Shawshank and Forrest Gump were both great but IMO Pulp Fiction took film making to another level. A pretty good year for movies, that's for sure.

Also, as much as I like Shawshank, it wouldn't be in my top 10 all time, much less number 1.

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Pulp Fiction would have been my pick that year. Don't get me wrong, Shawshank and Forrest Gump were both great but IMO Pulp Fiction took film making to another level. A pretty good year for movies, that's for sure.

Also, as much as I like Shawshank, it wouldn't be in my top 10 all time, much less number 1.

"Pulp Fiction" is an entertaining flick to be sure... But it's weird. And it's not something I would sit and watch repeatedly.

[SultanOfSix]

Probably Superman IV.

Even Christopher Reeve, the most charismatic actor to play any superhero, couldn't save that film.

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

"Pulp Fiction" is an entertaining flick to be sure... But it's weird. And it's not something I would sit and watch repeatedly.

The fact that it is weird (different) is part of the appeal for me. I've watched it countless times. Good discussion.