What constitutes a "bad movie?"

[GhostPoet]

Movies with poor acting or writing are the most obvious.

But on a deeper level...I hate movies that shove their message down your throat. Vendetta felt like force-fed propaganda...and there are a few other movies who don't let the viewer form their own opinion and instead presume to shove down your throat what they want YOU to believe. A message can be subtle and just as compelling...infact, a movie that shoves it down your throat is less compelling to me.

Movies that follow clique's. Certain movies can do it and still be good...but many fail.

 

[Commodore Schmidlapp]

Anything that ends with the word Movie

 

[Fanticon]

when nothing really comes together from beginning to end...bad story, bad acting...good story bad acting, good acting bad story...the two just have to work for me. Depending on the film and its story...style, sfx, cinematography and music can all play a factor...if it hits the right notes its good enough for me...but if the story is bad and the acting worse...not even style and all that good stuff save it.

 

[chaseter]

If it has the words: 'Sci-Fi channel original'

 

[ord0g]

Anything that comes out of Fox's stables.

 

[WeaponXProject]

If the movie poster has Paul Walker on it.

 

[terry78]

Anything that ends with the word Movie

I don't think so.

 

[Addendum]

Rob Schneider

 

[shapeshifter]

The following applies directly to me and in no way is intended to reflect the taste of anyone who glances upon it, so relax.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Dude, Tea Leoni has made like five movies. She's barely a blip on the radar.

All the others I understand.

 

[The Joker]

 

[shapeshifter]

Dude, Tea Leoni has made like five movies. She's barely a blip on the radar.

All the others I understand.

her performance in
Jurassic Park 3
and Fun with Dick and Jane gave my eyes herpes.

 

[Mr. Credible]

If it's not entertaining and it's as simple as that. If people are entertained by the movie then all the other factors don't actually matter. When you're entertained you ignore bad acting, bad directing and concentrate on the good. When you're not entertained all the flaws jump at you.

A good example is the 1st Pirates of the Caribbean movie, that movie in terms of acting is horrible the lead actor is Olando Bloom, the lead actress Keria Kneightly, the direction is terrible, he prefers CG to actual actors, the plot is inchorent, the characters, as written are bland, the Governor etc are all idoits, Jack Sparrow is an evil pirate but still risks his life to save someone for no reason other than it's the right thing to do. It's a poorly made film.

But Johnny Depp and Geophry Rush are great so peopleignore all that.

agreed... i was acually thinking about the pirates' movies when i first saw this thread.

a good movie is nothing more than a movie you enjoy. someone else mentioned charlie's angels, which is, for all intents and purposes, a bad movie. but i liked it, and enjoyed watching it. it all comes down to opinion.

the pirates' movies? bad dialog, acting, story... good cgi and good performances by rush and depp (and that's pretty debatable). LoTR? bad dialog, over-long, boring story, some great special effects, and a few bad ones, and this is a masterpiece?

like i said, all opinion. it's no debatable.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

These are some of the more common causes of bad films:

1) Studio interference. The director wants to make one film, the studio wants another (often to get a PG13 rating or a shorter run time). Fox is plagued with these films.

2) Rushed films. I supposed this could really be 1B, and it generally affects sequels. A studio sees a big money making film and rushes to get a sequel out before the original cast and crew are ready. Sometimes they get replaced by mediocre substitutes, some times they hang around but aren't as interested or prepared as they should be. Usually the end result is sloppy even in a best case scenario.

3) Poor concept. Some films just don't work and shouldn't have been approved in the first place. These are films that won't succeed no matter the talent of everybody involved. The Love Guru could have starred Peter O'Toole, Katherine Hepburn and Clark Gable and been directed by Orson Welles and it still would have blew.

4) Good ideas with talent that isn't up to the task. I am a firm believer that nobody is a sure thing and even the crappiest actors can sometimes find a good role. But the odds are a lot better with a great cast and crew than a lousy one. Can you imagine The Dark Knight with Paul Walker as Batman and Keanu Reeves as Joker? Sure it may end up being good, but the odds are against it.

5) The effects budget makes up 95% of the total amount of money spent on a film. That's always a bad sign.

 

[Mr. Credible]

Anything that comes out of Fox's stables.

i suppose you're trying to be funny, and that's all fine and good, b seriously?

FOX has made more than it's fair share of great movies. sure, they screw up a few high profile ones, due to some bad upper-management decisions, but really, what studio doesn't?

 

[StrainedEyes]

I just want to point this movie out... again.

[YT]hxyeDCXW564[/YT]

*shudder*

 

[Hobgoblin]

What I hate is a bad script. I can enjoy a movie with "bad" special effects (Evil Dead style) if the story is good more than a movie with incredible effects but with a stupid story. I like films that are thought provoking not just something that has "I was written by a kid with ADD!!!!!" written all over it.

 

[[A]]

The following applies directly to me and in no way is intended to reflect the taste of anyone who glances upon it, so relax.

Finally someone —other than me— says that. Add Mike Myers, Will Ferrell, Adam Sandler, the list goes on and on and on..

 

[Hobgoblin]

Yeah, I dont care for Sandler. The others are ok.

 

[charl_huntress]

That is a interesting question.

IMO, a bad movie is based on feeling. I HATE Superman Returns, but I don't think it's a badly made movie. In fact, there are some aspects in the cinematography that are quite good. I just hate the story as it is told for Superman. Yet, on the other hand there are a movies like Green Street Hooligans 2, which is cut badly, lacks story and is just awful. That is a bad movie and I am sure everyone can agree. Though, I am sure there are some folks out there who like it, w hich just proves my earlier poiint.

I think a bad movie is something personal to the viewer. You either like it or you don't, and your reasons for not liking a movie may be completely opposed to someone who likes the movie. LOL....just look at the Superman Returns threads and you'll see what I am talking about.

 

[Zanham]

A bad movie is one that leaves me looking at the time, one that I'll finish watching because I started watching it but really can't wait until it is over.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

To me, a bad movie has a number of things wrong with it. Acting, script, direction, editing etc. It can also be how I feel about it in some aspects, but that doesn't mean I won't deny that it's a decently made movie.

One of my friends absolutely loves Judge Dredd, but he can at least admit that it is a badly made film.

 

[Marvin]

This is quite literally like asking what constitutes a "bad painting," only with about 3 times the subjective elements, such as "bad music."

A bad scientific theory, ok. This is art.

 

[Sawyer]

A lack of un-simulated sex scenes.

Which is why Shia's next movie is going to be the best of all time!!!

 

[Warhammer]

People have said every reason what makes a bad movie (script, acting, direction, etc), so I won't sound like a broken record, but a sort of out-of-the-box answer would be a movie that fails in it's genre. For example, a horror film that isn't scary to the general audience; a comedy that the general audience doesn't find funny; an action film that the general audience feels heavily lacks action.