HAHAHAHAHA!
-
Rena_Mahone — 14 years ago(November 11, 2011 08:34 PM)
Worse than the first movie? Yes. Worst movie ever made? No.
If this is actually the worst thing you've ever watched, you're lucky.
Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too) -
Morbius_Fitzgerald — 13 years ago(August 16, 2012 05:48 AM)
Although this has a poor excuse for a script this is NOT the worst film in the history of cinema. This had normal lighting, no unnecessary tints, no out of focus shots etc
I will say though that unlike a movie that actually DOES all that, this actually waved an offensive budget in your face saying "Look at how much money someone gave us!" I still think this is McG's best work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU2k-U2Ze0o
While Ed Wood has made bad movies at least they weren't made with huge budgets. -
Darwinskid — 13 years ago(October 05, 2012 11:01 PM)
Not a good movie no but to call it the worst in the history of cinema? No, not even by a long shot. To the guy who said the aforementioned( Plan 9, Batman & Robin, etc.) were at least entertaining and thought this was a pain to sit through watch THE LAST AIRBENDER then get back to me, you might actually begin to love this one
I've got an ignore list longer than a Chinese phone book. -
avortac — 9 years ago(May 28, 2016 10:57 AM)
When you review a movie, or form an opinion about one, you should always look at it from the proper context and appropriate perspective.
Would you rate a Tom&Jerry-cartoon the same way you would rate some serious historical documentary? Of course not.
The cartoon's job is just to entertain a young audience, and it is free to do it in any kind of silly way the makers of it want it to. No one should be judging it as epic masterpiece, when all it is meant to do is just be fun entertainment, that can break any kind of 'laws' that we are used to.
When we are living in this limited and limiting world, full of obstacles, laws (of physics, for example), confinements and precluded possibilities, why shouldn't at least a MOVIE dare to be free of these limitations?
What's more fun - to watch something that is just as dull as your everyday life, or to watch something that's more interesting and takes more liberties with physical laws and such, to bring you entertaining (although possibly 'ridiculous') stunts and events.
Explosive, colorful, 'implausible', wild and crazy fun is more fun to watch than someone going grocery shopping and not being able to decide between a cantaloupe and a melon.
This movie shouldn't be judged as a 'serious movie' that tries to tell the audience something profound. You have your 'The Matrixes' for that (although that movie is very silly also, when you really start to think about it, and its messages are not all that profound in the end).
Why couldn't a movie be just "FUN" instead of "Having-to-obey-OUR-non-movie-universe-physical-laws"?
If you can't see 'implausible' and 'unrealistic', 'physically impossible' and 'ridiculous' stunts in a movie, where can you expect to see them? I think a movie is a perfect place for this kind of ESCAPISM.
It's odd, it's almost as if audiences have forgotten that movies are supposed to be escapism from the dull 'reality' they are forced to exist in every day. Movies are SUPPOSED to be something different and more interesting and exciting than is possible to experience or see in your everyday life. Why shouldn't movies be allowed some liberties in what happens and how it happens?
This movie is a "live-action-cartoon".
If you judge it as such, it's actually just a 'fun flick' instead of 'worst movie ever'.
It doesn't TRY to be a serious movie that you can draw parallels to real life from. It tries to just entertain, and so what if it does it in a bit of a goofy way sometimes. Now, it's not the 'best movie' in any way, but if you judge it more as a 'cartoon' than a 'serious movie', you can possibly find that it's actually just good fun most of the time.
I didn't like the very aggressive soundtrack, the gloomy bits, the villain, or the bulldog-face with make-up (she's the equivalent of the fish-eye-freak in 'Beverly Hills 90210' that doesn't fit in with the others, but because she was the producer's daughter.. nepotism always wins), or the misandry, or the 'female machoing' (the only thing more annoying than 'male machoing')..
.. but all in all, if you have the proper ATTITUDE towards this movie, you can actually enjoy it quite a lot, and watch it again many times!
Yes, there are ridiculous things in them, but isn't it refreshing to sometimes see something ridiculous instead of always everything trying to be so 'realistic'? I find 'ridiculous' more fun than 'realistic'.. all 'realism' does is bring boredom and tediousness - 'ridiculousness' allows things to be more free and interesting!
So, no.. not the worst movie ever.
Besides, in my opinion, a movie can be as bad as it wants, as long as it doesn't BORE me or TERRIFY me (I hate 'horror' crap in movies - everyday lives are horrible enough, we don't really need to add horror).
As long as a movie entertains me and doesn't put me into some gloomy boredom without colors, it can be as bad as anyone wants it to be, and I can still enjoy it.
With the right attitude and perspective, you can watch this movie and enjoy. With the wrong attitude, you're going to be enraged by the 'ridiculousness' - but it's up to you, whether this movie is enjoyable, or not. Sometimes the audience is responsible. -
petsitter — 9 years ago(August 27, 2016 10:24 AM)
Great fun from beginning to end.
A great piece of popcorn cinema.
I enjoyed it.
I'm female and am so bored with watching movies of blokes having all the roles.
I want to watch people I can identify with in escapist, fun, nonsense that doesn't patronise me by thinking all I want to watch is boy meets girl.