Crap films you love for some weird reason ?
Discussion
I seem to remember an interview with John Carpenter where he acknowledged the deterioration in the quality of his film, and blamed it on his drug use.
His best work is brilliant (Halloween, Assault on Precinct 13, The Thing, Escape from New York, Starman), despite the one dimensional characters and usually wooden acting. But even some of his later work has merit. They Live is entertaining, and has a great premise, although very much ‘of its time’. I would even defend “In The Mouth Of Madness” as interesting.
(I think I may be backing myself into a corner defending ‘crap films I love’.)
His best work is brilliant (Halloween, Assault on Precinct 13, The Thing, Escape from New York, Starman), despite the one dimensional characters and usually wooden acting. But even some of his later work has merit. They Live is entertaining, and has a great premise, although very much ‘of its time’. I would even defend “In The Mouth Of Madness” as interesting.
(I think I may be backing myself into a corner defending ‘crap films I love’.)
I am a big fan of John Carpenter, and some of his films may be a good candidates for this thread.
THe THing isn't, that is a genuine iconic film, one of the best, if not the best of it's kind. Still stands up today. Great acting.
I actually do like Escape From LA, guilty pleasure I suppose, it was from the same time as Die ANother Day, were studios trying to get away with as cheap and shoddy cgi as they could? Mummy 2 anyone?
Anyhoo, I guess the Moore Bond films are guilty pleasure for me...the later ones, since some are good in their own right.
THe THing isn't, that is a genuine iconic film, one of the best, if not the best of it's kind. Still stands up today. Great acting.
I actually do like Escape From LA, guilty pleasure I suppose, it was from the same time as Die ANother Day, were studios trying to get away with as cheap and shoddy cgi as they could? Mummy 2 anyone?
Anyhoo, I guess the Moore Bond films are guilty pleasure for me...the later ones, since some are good in their own right.
SpudLink said:
I seem to remember an interview with John Carpenter where he acknowledged the deterioration in the quality of his film, and blamed it on his drug use.
His best work is brilliant (Halloween, Assault on Precinct 13, The Thing, Escape from New York, Starman), despite the one dimensional characters and usually wooden acting. But even some of his later work has merit. They Live is entertaining, and has a great premise, although very much ‘of its time’. I would even defend “In The Mouth Of Madness” as interesting.
(I think I may be backing myself into a corner defending ‘crap films I love’.)
Prince of Darkness is a great film as wellHis best work is brilliant (Halloween, Assault on Precinct 13, The Thing, Escape from New York, Starman), despite the one dimensional characters and usually wooden acting. But even some of his later work has merit. They Live is entertaining, and has a great premise, although very much ‘of its time’. I would even defend “In The Mouth Of Madness” as interesting.
(I think I may be backing myself into a corner defending ‘crap films I love’.)
SpudLink said:
I seem to remember an interview with John Carpenter where he acknowledged the deterioration in the quality of his film, and blamed it on his drug use.
His best work is brilliant (Halloween, Assault on Precinct 13, The Thing, Escape from New York, Starman), despite the one dimensional characters and usually wooden acting. But even some of his later work has merit. They Live is entertaining, and has a great premise, although very much ‘of its time’. I would even defend “In The Mouth Of Madness” as interesting.
(I think I may be backing myself into a corner defending ‘crap films I love’.)
That's some great triv! His best work is brilliant (Halloween, Assault on Precinct 13, The Thing, Escape from New York, Starman), despite the one dimensional characters and usually wooden acting. But even some of his later work has merit. They Live is entertaining, and has a great premise, although very much ‘of its time’. I would even defend “In The Mouth Of Madness” as interesting.
(I think I may be backing myself into a corner defending ‘crap films I love’.)
Halb said:
I like They Live, dunno if it's crap or not.
Good candidate for remake me thinks.
It has Roddy Piper, an ex pro-wrestler as the main star and the plot is about some random guy who discovers a pair of sunglasses that let's him see aliens.Good candidate for remake me thinks.
Outside of PH and film geeks, it's a crap film.
I was tempted to nominate Tombstone, but I think that falls more into the category of genuinely good. I did try to make sure by digging out my old DVD copy, unfortunately being a very early one it just goes into some bizarre aspect ratio that is a letterboxed 4:3 and barely better than VHS quality. Perhaps it's time to buy the blu-ray.
One that definitely counts though is Doom. Despite being terrible and missing the entire point of the games its based on by using mutants instead of demons, for some reason I can always rewatch it.
One that definitely counts though is Doom. Despite being terrible and missing the entire point of the games its based on by using mutants instead of demons, for some reason I can always rewatch it.
SpudLink said:
Many of the films listed so far are not crap. Maybe low budget, or cheesy, or dated, but that doesn't make them crap. I mean, Dog Soldiers? It's bloody brilliant. It does exactly what it set out to do, which is to be a highly entertaining squaddies-vs-werewolves B-movie.
However, I'll play the game anyway.
Hudson Hawk. A big budget film with an A-list star, hated by everyone. Except me.
But Hudson hawk was awesome! However, I'll play the game anyway.
Hudson Hawk. A big budget film with an A-list star, hated by everyone. Except me.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff