Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Worst film you have ever seen and why?

:hmm:

IMO this has been the golden decade for comic book adaptations, with the Nolan Batmam films, the first two X Men, the spiderman films were ok...

To me, those aren't really even like adaptations, because they're so big budget, and the characters are well known even outside 'comicdom', if you know what I mean.

To me, a real adaptation, takes something more obscure, and creates a good movie out of it. It's harder to fail if you've got 100 million in the budget.
 
To me, those aren't really even like adaptations, because they're so big budget, and the characters are well known even outside 'comicdom', if you know what I mean.

To me, a real adaptation, takes something more obscure, and creates a good movie out of it. It's harder to fail if you've got 100 million in the budget.

The Nolan Batman films are definitely proper adaptations though because they kind of stuck to the comics (reversing some major flaws in the originals like the revisionist idea tha tJoker killed Batmans parents).

V For Vendett was good if we're thinking about movies from more obscure comics.
 
I mean compared with Batman or whatever.

I realise that V for Vendetta was totally mainstream in the encyclopedeaic sense that urbanites exist in, where it is necessary to have heard of every single thing that has ever existed, but to your average person, it was pretty obscure.

And itw as a good film
 
I never saw this part. If I had, maybe I would have liked it more.

Honestly, I seriously doubt you would.

The thing is, a selection of screengrabs from throughout the whole film might well give the impression of a somewhat silly but enjoyable SF action outing; yet on actual viewing it's appallingly scripted, acted, structured, edited and directed.

Even considering it in the bubble of a somewhat silly SF film, nothing ever really makes sense, and that which does does not ever come across as plausible or likely, even within the parameters of the film's own internal logic.
 
That's what I've heard about BE - it's not even a piece of throwaway tosh which you can just sit back with a six pack and enjoy mindlessly, like Under Siege or whatever, it's just pure shit because it doesn't even work within itself.
 
I realise that V for Vendetta was totally mainstream in the encyclopedeaic sense that urbanites exist in, where it is necessary to have heard of every single thing that has ever existed, but to your average person, it was pretty obscure.

I'm not talking in the context of 'Urban', I'm talking in the context of comic books and comic book movie adaptations.

Warrior (whence it came) was one of the most significant UK comics of the early 1980s, helping to redefine the market as beyond IPC and DC Thomson. It had limited, niche appeal (ie comics fans), but its influence rippled much further out. After Alan Moore's success with Swamp Thing and Watchmen, DC took on (the unfinished) V For Vendetta and it was completed and coloured. It got a big airing. It was collected into a successful trade paperback twenty years ago!

That to me is not an obscure comic.

The film significantly altered the meaning and tone of the comic book in adapting it for the screen. Whilst some scenes and characters are clearly recognisable, the work as a whole is not. It may be an entertaining, diverting, even enjoyable confection, but the film does not in any way successfully impart the things about the comic book which made it so resonant in the first place.

IMHO.

I'd place it with Batman, Swamp Thing and The Punisher (1989) - watchable movies with a loose connection to their source material comic books; silver screen homages or pastiches.
 
That's what I've heard about BE - it's not even a piece of throwaway tosh which you can just sit back with a six pack and enjoy mindlessly, like Under Siege or whatever, it's just pure shit because it doesn't even work within itself.

I never quite believed it until I watched it myself. I've never read a review more accurate than The Groke's on Battlefield Earth. I just wish that I had listened to what he was saying and not bothered watching it.
 
Fair enough - I'd never heard of V for Vendetta before the film came out, but I'd heard of Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc.

But then all of those have featured in multiple TV shows, radio serials, cartoons and movies since the 40s, 40s and 70s respectively; I think this helps create a broader (if not deeper) awareness of the characters and the basic premises of the worlds which they inhabit. The cross-media existence of them in popular culture since the 30s (or 60s) give them a big head start on something like, say, V For Vendetta, which debuted in 1982.
 
But then all of those have featured in multiple TV shows, radio serials, cartoons and movies since the 40s, 40s and 70s respectively; I think this helps create a broader (if not deeper) awareness of the characters and the basic premises of the worlds which they inhabit. The cross-media existence of them in popular culture since the 30s (or 60s) give them a big head start on something like, say, V For Vendetta, which debuted in 1982.

Fair enough. TBH I'm not much of a comic book reader.
 
Fair enough. TBH I'm not much of a comic book reader.

But I noticed you had picked up on the canon-busting elements of Burton's Batman - as 'corrected' by Nolan; which takes us into interesting territory. Comic books such as Batman and Spidermand and Superman are all long-running, encompassing many different writers and artists, each with different ideas and different things to say, and unfolding over entirely different generations, each with their own mores. Over time the characters and their universes have been tinkered with countless times. Canon and orthodoxy have been turned on their heads countless times; the reboot is a familiar occurrence.

Whereas a comic like V For Vendetta is finite. There is no sequel, no continuing adventures, no spin-off strip for a spunky young cohort. V For Vendetta is that single story arc, with a beginning, a middle and an end. So when a film adaptation so diverges from its source material, it is that much more noticeable.

With a character like Batman, a chameleon cipher practically in public ownership - a vigilante, a psychopath, a boyfriend, a patriot, a detective, a killer, a role model, a subversive, a fascist - there are a thousand different versions of the story that can be told, and each one can be 'true'.
 
Yeah, I have been a devotee of the Church of Groke ever since that review, although my faith has been called into question by his opinion of the recent Star Trek film :(

Did he not like it then?

A Twitter friend did recently express her disappointment that it hadn't taken more inspiration from Kirk/Spock slash fiction... :eek:
 
The Nolan Batman films are definitely proper adaptations though because they kind of stuck to the comics (reversing some major flaws in the originals like the revisionist idea tha tJoker killed Batmans parents).

V For Vendett was good if we're thinking about movies from more obscure comics.

V for Vendetta was very good.
 
Honestly, I seriously doubt you would.

The thing is, a selection of screengrabs from throughout the whole film might well give the impression of a somewhat silly but enjoyable SF action outing; yet on actual viewing it's appallingly scripted, acted, structured, edited and directed.

Even considering it in the bubble of a somewhat silly SF film, nothing ever really makes sense, and that which does does not ever come across as plausible or likely, even within the parameters of the film's own internal logic.

It is truly a loathsome film. It's an insult to the senses, and it's thievery, imo, to charge anyone money to see it.
 
But I noticed you had picked up on the canon-busting elements of Burton's Batman - as 'corrected' by Nolan; which takes us into interesting territory. Comic books such as Batman and Spidermand and Superman are all long-running, encompassing many different writers and artists, each with different ideas and different things to say, and unfolding over entirely different generations, each with their own mores. Over time the characters and their universes have been tinkered with countless times. Canon and orthodoxy have been turned on their heads countless times; the reboot is a familiar occurrence.

Whereas a comic like V For Vendetta is finite. There is no sequel, no continuing adventures, no spin-off strip for a spunky young cohort. V For Vendetta is that single story arc, with a beginning, a middle and an end. So when a film adaptation so diverges from its source material, it is that much more noticeable.

With a character like Batman, a chameleon cipher practically in public ownership - a vigilante, a psychopath, a boyfriend, a patriot, a detective, a killer, a role model, a subversive, a fascist - there are a thousand different versions of the story that can be told, and each one can be 'tr ue'.

Interesting - yeah I know quite a bit about the Batman universe and that, but less about the individual comics.
 
It's not that I didn't enjoy the film, it's just that it's considerably different to the comic, which outclasses it in pretty much every area. I think it works perfectly well for a big budget movie with lots of action sequences.
 
See, I thought for a big budget action movie it was quite different from the norm - how many other big budget films do we get to see the houses of parliament getting blown up?
 
Independence Day blew the shit out of the White House, and I fell asleep in the cinema during that.
 
Back
Top Bottom