Worst movie you ever saw?

[MichaelWinicki]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

 

[honyock]

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]

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]

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]

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.