Worst movie you ever saw?

[honyock]

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

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.

One interesting footnote about Shawshank is that Kevin Costner turned down the role of Andy Duphrane, which was later offered to Robbins. Costner later said he regretted turning it down.

It really is pretty amazing, that the film had such low box office numbers, then its reputation kept growing and growing after it became a staple of cable tv and dvd rentals. It regularly gets included in Top 100 All Time lists. It's easily on my top five list.

[MichaelWinicki]

George Romero's "Land of the Dead" was a big disapointment for me.

Very big.

This was the Romero flick where George finally teamed up with a major studio and was given a decent budget to create an epic zombie-flick.

I was a huge Romero fan from the first time I fudged my learner's permit to show that I was 18 in order to get into "Dawn of the Dead" (was rated X for violence, which meant you had to be 18 in order to get in). An amazing film. With an unknown cast and miniscule budget. But still Siskel & Ebert gave it two-thumbs up!

It was a couple years later when I finally saw "Night of the Living Dead". And then in the mid 80's watched "Day of the Dead".

Had huge anticipation for "Land", but it failed on so many levels. Plot mainly. Even using bigger name actors didn't help, maybe even hurt.

[Teren_Kanan]

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.

Wow Pulp Fiction came out that year too. All 3 of those Movies are on my top movies ever made list. What a good year that was.

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by honyock

One interesting footnote about Shawshank is that Kevin Costner turned down the role of Andy Duphrane, which was later offered to Robbins. Costner later said he regretted turning it down.

It really is pretty amazing, that the film had such low box office numbers, then its reputation kept growing and growing after it became a staple of cable tv and dvd rentals. It regularly gets included in Top 100 All Time lists. It's easily on my top five list.

Costner would have been a bigger draw no doubt.

Not sure he could have done the character of Andy Duphrane to the level that Robbins did. Robbins does "soft-spoken" very well.

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

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

Can't argue with that logic.

[honyock]

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

Costner would have been a bigger draw no doubt.

Not sure he could have done the character of Andy Duphrane to the level that Robbins did. Robbins does "soft-spoken" very well.

Yeah, I agree. Costner would've helped the box office but Robbins ended up being perfect for the part.

[WoodysGirl]

Originally Posted by dexternjack

That was probably "First Wives Club", man-hating at its finest.

I can't lie. I liked First Wives Club. It was hilarious.

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by WoodysGirl

I can't lie. I liked First Wives Club. It was hilarious.

Perspective is a funny thing.

[WoodysGirl]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Perspective is a funny thing.

I liked the actresses in the movie. They're some of my favs.

I never really thought it was man-hating. To me, it was just a comedy. But I guess it could've been...if you're a man. It's not a movie I would've taken a date to see.

[dexternjack]

Originally Posted by WoodysGirl

I liked the actresses in the movie. They're some of my favs.

I never really thought it was man-hating. To me, it was just a comedy. But I guess it could've been...if you're a man. It's not a movie I would've taken a date to see.

I never said it was a horrible movie, just man-hating some

I do like Goldie and Lane as actresses, see most of their movies.

[LynnFoster]

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

I'm a huge fan of "man in rubber suit stomps the living bejesus out of some city" and I thought the 1998 version of "Godzilla" was dreadful.

What a total miss by Roland Emmerich.

I used to know a guy that did special effects on that version so we went to a showing in Santa Monica before the public release. It was cool, it was just for people who worked on it and their families so the main people on the film were telling kids how their Dad had helped so much with yatta yatta. Fun time.

When the movie started the place broke into huge applause, then family groups yelling whenever their name credit showed on the screen.

Then the film broke. There an audible gasp, then laughter, then 200 conversations of some variation of "can you believe this?" with the screen a big blank white in front of us.

Then a young boy started doing a shadow puppets in front of the projector, the shadow dog up on screen where Godzilla should be. It was freaking hilarious.

[Kristen82]

Lots of good choices. Almost as fun as renting a good movie is renting bad ones just so you can sit there and ridicule them, like anything Keanu Reeves is in because he's a horrible actor and it's fun to imitate him while he's talking on screen.

[joseephuss]

Originally Posted by Teren_Kanan

Wow Pulp Fiction came out that year too. All 3 of those Movies are on my top movies ever made list. What a good year that was.

Four Weddings and a Funeral also came out in 1994. Good movie.

I looked on Wikipedia. According to hit, Rob Reiner at one time wanted to direct Shawshank and cast Tom Cruise as Andy and Harrison Ford as Red. I'm glad that never panned out as Cruise would have been terrible.

They also had more information on how much money the movie made.

Box office

The Shawshank Redemption received a limited release on September 23, 1994 in North America. During its opening weekend, the film earned $727,000 from 33 theaters—an average of $22,040 per theater. It received a wide release on October 14, 1994, expanding to a total of 944 theaters to earn $2.4 million—an average of $2,545 per theater—finishing as the number 9 film of the weekend.[1] The film left theaters in late November 1994, after 10 weeks with an approximate total gross of $16 million.[10]

It was later re-released in February 1995, during the Oscar season, and made an additional $9 million.[10][not in citation given] In total the film made approximately $28.3 million in North American theaters, making it the number 51 highest grossing film of 1994 and the number 21 highest grossing R-rated film of 1994.[1]

[ConcordCowboy]

Originally Posted by dexternjack

Ya can't leave out "Point Break" - Johnny Utah!

Too bad Bodhi missed this 100 footer yesterday!

[Yeagermeister]

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.

These days they don't open multiple big movies at the same time like they used too. The studios want to be able to say hey look at us we have the #1 movie even if its a piece of crap.