'Bad' Movies, TV Shows, Books Etc. You Like

[Rob_Royale]

Another one for me, is the Beastmaster. This came out in '82 when I was 14 and it was just the bomb for me. Animals, action, monsters, Tanya Roberts and her amazing boobs, Rip Torn as the ultra campy villain, and the coolest movie sword of all time. It is not a great film, but it sure was fun. I'd put it on par with any Xena episode. I rewatch it every few years just for fun.

 

[SimonDoom]

Another one for me, is the Beastmaster. This came out in '82 when I was 14 and it was just the bomb for me. Animals, action, monsters, Tanya Roberts and her amazing boobs, Rip Torn as the ultra campy villain, and the coolest movie sword of all time. It is not a great film, but it sure was fun. I'd put it on par with any Xena episode. I rewatch it every few years just for fun.

View attachment 2353830

Tanya Roberts. Who can forget her nude swimming scene in Sheena:Queen of the Jungle?

"Remove those strange skins you wear. From what animal do they come?"

 

[NoTalentHack]

Road House, 13th Warrior, Big Trouble in Little China, The Warriors, Spaceballs...none of these were bad. They were well made, well acted, and well produced. I liked Star Wars Episodes 1 to 3, despite all of the horrible acting George Lucas allowed to be in the movie. (Hey, Lucas, you're allowed to film a scene more than once, you know?) Full Metal Jacket had some horrible acting, so bad it made me cringe. But were they bad movies because of it?

Okay, if that’s the criteria?

I love Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man, completely unironically. Yes, that one, the shitty early 90s Mickey Rourke/Don Johnson buddy criminal “action” movie that rightfully bombed at the box office.

It’s awful from any reasonable standpoint: bad acting, bad script, misogynistic, melodramatic, poor choreography, etc.

You know what else it is, though? One of the best examples of a cyberpunk movie ever made, minus all the cyber. If you took a cyberpunk game and said, “okay, I want to run a campaign set in an era between present day (for 1992) and when everyone’s all chromed up,” this is what you’d get.

You’ve got a then-near future setting, a ragtag group of criminals who are supposed to be “rough but likeable” fighting against a corporate attempt to evict their mentor, a heist gone wrong, a hyper-addictive new drug, nigh-unkillable corporate hit squads sent in to deal with/coverup the corporation’s involvement in its manufacture… the list goes on and on.

The first time I saw it, I was in high school, recovering from a minor surgery and high as a kite on Vicodin. I’d just gotten the new Shadowrun 2nd edition RPG book and had been binging it, when this essentially live-action Shadowrun movie—minus cyberware and the supernatural elements of that particular setting—comes on HBO. I sat there thinking the whole time, “Holy shit, this is 100% a Shadowrun campaign.” Even through the drugs, I knew it was shit from a quality standpoint, but damn if I didn’t get a kick out of it. I rewatched it later, and from that standpoint, it held up. Maybe I’m due for another watch.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Braindead/Dead Alive

“I kick arse for the Lord!”

 

[NoTalentHack]

An under appreciated part of Weird Science was that they were creating their fantasy woman and they made her smart and talented. During the scanning montage they had pictures of Einstein and a concert pianist among other things.

Bill Paxton in that movie was worth the price of admission. “It’s all done outta love!”

 

[jaF0]

Okay, if that’s the criteria?

I love Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man, completely unironically.

Reminds of of The Adventures Of Fairlane Ford.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm looking at these "bad" movies and it seems people are just mentioning movies they like that weren't popular. Most of these aren't bad movies, they're just not to everyone's taste. The acting is fine, the production values are fine, the plots can be a little silly, but that's about the worst thing I can think of. The movies were coherent, the sequences made sense, etc.

When I think of bad movies, Lost Boys 2 comes to mind. Now that's a bad movie. It's a horrible movie, and I didn't even try to watch the entire thing.

Road House, 13th Warrior, Big Trouble in Little China, The Warriors, Spaceballs...none of these were bad. They were well made, well acted, and well produced. I liked Star Wars Episodes 1 to 3, despite all of the horrible acting George Lucas allowed to be in the movie. (Hey, Lucas, you're allowed to film a scene more than once, you know?) Full Metal Jacket had some horrible acting, so bad it made me cringe. But were they bad movies because of it?

Maybe a thread about "What makes a movie bad?" should be started.

Fair enough. I think the most significant common denominator is bad writing. Obviously, there's a high degree of subjectivity in these judgments.

I stand by my judgment that Roadhouse is a "bad" movie, because the plot and the writing are ludicrously terrible. It's juvenile. There are some decent actors in it, although nobody will point to this movie as evidence of their ability as actors. Patrick Swayze's character is ridiculous. Ben Gazzara's villain is ludicrous. The villainous henchmen are cartoons. But I still think it's fun.

Part of what's fun about pointing out a movie like Roadhouse, as opposed to something like Plan Nine, is that it was made by a major studio with prominent actors and a significant budget. Many people obviously do not think it was bad. It made $61 million on a budget of $15 million, good for its time. But its Rotten Tomatoes percentage is only 44%, which indicates most critics think it's pretty bad. We can all have fun disagreeing about that.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

In my opinion, there is a reason why many of the mentioned movies worked, even if the script was just plain silly at times - They weren't taking themselves too seriously and there was a certain undeniable charm to them. There are so many movies that fit into this category, and some of them were really loved by the audience.
Modern movies fail in this particular sense. The writing sucks yet there is no charm to cover for it. They often take themselves seriously, trying to project some kind of realism, which coupled with bland and uninspired writing makes the whole product lame. It takes skill to make something silly but still appealing and charming.

 

[AlinaX]

Another one for me, is the Beastmaster. This came out in '82 when I was 14 and it was just the bomb for me. Animals, action, monsters, Tanya Roberts and her amazing boobs, Rip Torn as the ultra campy villain, and the coolest movie sword of all time. It is not a great film, but it sure was fun. I'd put it on par with any Xena episode. I rewatch it every few years just for fun.

View attachment 2353830

Marc Singer was Mike Donovan in V, something I've read and watched a dozen times. Beastmaster was pretty cool.

 

[jaF0]

^^^ Ahh, yes, Jane Badler as Diana.

 

[AlinaX]

Morena Baccarin was chilling in the remake.

 

[jaF0]

Fargin' iceholes dumped all over Johnny Dangerously, but I say they're just corksucking bastages!!

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Okay, if that’s the criteria?

I love Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man, completely unironically. Yes, that one, the shitty early 90s Mickey Rourke/Don Johnson buddy criminal “action” movie that rightfully bombed at the box office.

It’s awful from any reasonable standpoint: bad acting, bad script, misogynistic, melodramatic, poor choreography, etc.

You know what else it is, though? One of the best examples of a cyberpunk movie ever made, minus all the cyber. If you took a cyberpunk game and said, “okay, I want to run a campaign set in an era between present day (for 1992) and when everyone’s all chromed up,” this is what you’d get.

You’ve got a then-near future setting, a ragtag group of criminals who are supposed to be “rough but likeable” fighting against a corporate attempt to evict their mentor, a heist gone wrong, a hyper-addictive new drug, nigh-unkillable corporate hit squads sent in to deal with/coverup the corporation’s involvement in its manufacture… the list goes on and on.

The first time I saw it, I was in high school, recovering from a minor surgery and high as a kite on Vicodin. I’d just gotten the new Shadowrun 2nd edition RPG book and had been binging it, when this essentially live-action Shadowrun movie—minus cyberware and the supernatural elements of that particular setting—comes on HBO. I sat there thinking the whole time, “Holy shit, this is 100% a Shadowrun campaign.” Even through the drugs, I knew it was shit from a quality standpoint, but damn if I didn’t get a kick out of it. I rewatched it later, and from that standpoint, it held up. Maybe I’m due for another watch.

I saw this movie for the first time a few months ago. My brother bought a .460SW and my dad was quoting the bits about "2 bucks everytime you fire that thing" and I had no idea what he was talking about.
So we ended up watching it. Definitely a good bad movie.

 

[AlinaX]

I often have affection for low budget films. They may often be cheesy, but they often dare a lot more than mainstream films will.

What springs to mind...

Show Me Love, a.k.a. Fucking Åmål
The Silencer, with Lynette Walden
Model by Day, with Famke Jansson
+ many 70s vampire films.

 

[Rob_Royale]

Fargin' iceholes dumped all over Johnny Dangerously, but I say they're just corksucking bastages!!

I love that movie. I'd love to write an erotica version.

 

[Two21B]

"Split Second" with Rutger Hauer as a streetwise Detective chasing a 10-foot-tall serial killing, astrology enthusiast that for some unknown reason carries within it the DNA of all its victims and a bunch of rats. The thing looks like a cross between the Spiderman villain "Venom" and a xenomorph. Hauer's partner sports an Oxford education, but no street smarts. This movie has very little plot, budget, or passable special effects. What it does have is some great banter between the mismatched partners, big guns (although not big enough and this is a point of contention at one point), plenty of gore, gallons of sugar-enhanced coffee, gratuitous Kim Cattrall nudity, a heartwarming environmental message, and Rutger Hauer is at his grizzled best! I watch this thing every Halloween. Not a movie for Siskel and Ebert, but Chainsaw and Dave would give it two thumbs up.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Not a movie for Siskel and Ebert, but Chainsaw and Dave would give it two thumbs up.

Summer School?

 

[Rob_Royale]

"Split Second" with Rutger Hauer as a streetwise Detective chasing a 10-foot-tall serial killing, astrology enthusiast that for some unknown reason carries within it the DNA of all its victims and a bunch of rats. The thing looks like a cross between the Spiderman villain "Venom" and a xenomorph. Hauer's partner sports an Oxford education, but no street smarts. This movie has very little plot, budget, or passable special effects. What it does have is some great banter between the mismatched partners, big guns (although not big enough and this is a point of contention at one point), plenty of gore, gallons of sugar-enhanced coffee, gratuitous Kim Cattrall nudity, a heartwarming environmental message, and Rutger Hauer is at his grizzled best! I watch this thing every Halloween. Not a movie for Siskel and Ebert, but Chainsaw and Dave would give it two thumbs up.

Wow. Cool monster, but weird. They ever give a reason for the visor? He ride a motorcycle or something?

 

[MrHereWriting]

Fair enough. I think the most significant common denominator is bad writing. Obviously, there's a high degree of subjectivity in these judgments.

I stand by my judgment that Roadhouse is a "bad" movie, because the plot and the writing are ludicrously terrible. It's juvenile. There are some decent actors in it, although nobody will point to this movie as evidence of their ability as actors. Patrick Swayze's character is ridiculous. Ben Gazzara's villain is ludicrous. The villainous henchmen are cartoons. But I still think it's fun.

Part of what's fun about pointing out a movie like Roadhouse, as opposed to something like Plan Nine, is that it was made by a major studio with prominent actors and a significant budget. Many people obviously do not think it was bad. It made $61 million on a budget of $15 million, good for its time. But its Rotten Tomatoes percentage is only 44%, which indicates most critics think it's pretty bad. We can all have fun disagreeing about that.

Roadhouse's premise was a modern take on the hired gunslinger cleans up the town genre. A famous bouncer is out there, even quietly laughable, and the line, "fuck guys like you" was terrible, but a silly, ludicrous, outlandish, or outright unbelievable plot doesn't make something bad. It may not be believable, but if it's well acted, the story is coherent, the sets aren't cheap, the lighting is good, the sound is mixed well, etc., it can still be a good movie that's not to everyone's taste. If silliness was the guideline, anything not based in reality would be bad movie.

I don't trust critics. Critics get paid to critique and to find flaws and they like to hear themselves speak, especially when it makes them look 'cultured.' Enjoyment seems to be last on their list of recommendations. They're also biased. Take a look at the movie Cats (which I didn't watch) but how can the only bright spot be Taylor Swift? Imagine if they said she was horrible? They'd have millions of her followers sending them death threats. Critics are not to be trusted.

In my opinion, there is a reason why many of the mentioned movies worked, even if the script was just plain silly at times - They weren't taking themselves too seriously and there was a certain undeniable charm to them. There are so many movies that fit into this category, and some of them were really loved by the audience.
Modern movies fail in this particular sense. The writing sucks yet there is no charm to cover for it. They often take themselves seriously, trying to project some kind of realism, which coupled with bland and uninspired writing makes the whole product lame. It takes skill to make something silly but still appealing and charming.

As I said to Simon, silly plots don't make bad movies. It's all about presentation, unless it's a sequel (for me) in which case a sequel can be terrible if it destroys the entire mythos of the movies that came before, which some do.

There are movies I dislike or don't care for and then there are justifiably bad movies. In truth, most movies are decent, but they're not universally loved.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

As I said to Simon, silly plots don't make bad movies. It's all about presentation, unless it's a sequel (for me) in which case a sequel can be terrible if it destroys the entire mythos of the movies that came before, which some do.

Silly plots can make for great movies.
Bill Murray's "The Man Who Knew Too Little" has an absurd plot, but it's a terrific movie.

 

[SimonDoom]

As I said to Simon, silly plots don't make bad movies. It's all about presentation, unless it's a sequel (for me) in which case a sequel can be terrible if it destroys the entire mythos of the movies that came before, which some do.

There are movies I dislike or don't care for and then there are justifiably bad movies. In truth, most movies are decent, but they're not universally loved.

These are all very subjective judgments about what is good and what is bad. I think of silly as something very different from bad. Raiders of the Lost Ark is quite silly in many ways-- the premise, the characters, the unbelievability of situations, the way scenes are obviously played for laughs or effect--but I'd call it a brilliant, excellent movie, not a bad one. I don't think of Road House as like that. There's nothing clever about it. Its production values are fine, and it has well-known actors, but instead of Raider's lightness and cleverness it has a heavy, plodding, pandering dullness that is relieved only by being so jaw-droppingly dumb that it's amusing. That's what I mean by calling it a "bad" movie. I stand by that, but if somebody else's criteria for being bad are different I can't tell them they're wrong. I would disagree with your judgment that most movies are "decent." I don't agree with that. I think most movies are pretty dumb and poorly executed. But again, that's wholly subjective.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

These are all very subjective judgments about what is good and what is bad. I think of silly as something very different from bad. Raiders of the Lost Ark is quite silly in many ways-- the premise, the characters, the unbelievability of situations, the way scenes are obviously played for laughs or effect--but I'd call it a brilliant, excellent movie, not a bad one. I don't think of Road House as like that. There's nothing clever about it. Its production values are fine, and it has well-known actors, but instead of Raider's lightness and cleverness it has a heavy, plodding, pandering dullness that is relieved only by being so jaw-droppingly dumb that it's amusing. That's what I mean by calling it a "bad" movie. I stand by that, but if somebody else's criteria for being bad are different I can't tell them they're wrong. I would disagree with your judgment that most movies are "decent." I don't agree with that. I think most movies are pretty dumb and poorly executed. But again, that's wholly subjective.

Raiders was an homage to the serials of Speilberg's youth, and it reflects the love and passion of a great artist.
Roadhouse was a remaking of the old gunfighter coming to town and it was made by a lesser artist.
If Speilberg had made Roadhouse with the same passion he had for Raiders it would be a very different movie.
It's not the recipe, it's the Chef.

 

[MrHereWriting]

I don't think of Road House as like that. There's nothing clever about it.

Roadhouse isn't trying to be clever. It's a straightforward, modern cowboy movie.

Its production values are fine, and it has well-known actors, but instead of Raider's lightness and cleverness it has a heavy, plodding, pandering dullness that is relieved only by being so jaw-droppingly dumb that it's amusing.

Plodding and pandering?

It progressed at a steady pace, and I enjoyed watching Dalton's cleaning up the bar and his escalating feud with Brad Wesley. And it's an action movie with action, where, like most action movies, the hero wins. All movies pander to their chosen audience (well, the good ones).

I reserve "jaw-droppingly dumb" for McGregor's over-the-top, cartoonish villain in the remake that definitely plunged that movie into the category of bad.

I would disagree with your judgment that most movies are "decent." I don't agree with that. I think most movies are pretty dumb and poorly executed. But again, that's wholly subjective.

Most movies that hit the theaters are decent. There's a lot of decent movies I don't like, and to call them bad would be disingenuous. Being decent doesn't mean good, it means average, middle of the road, passes muster, isn't good, isn't bad, it just is. Jackie Brown is one of the most boring movies I had ever seen. I left the theater, but I can recognize that it's a decent movie.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Raiders was an homage to the serials of Speilberg's youth, and it reflects the love and passion of a great artist.
Roadhouse was a remaking of the old gunfighter coming to town and it was made by a lesser artist.
If Speilberg had made Roadhouse with the same passion he had for Raiders it would be a very different movie.
It's not the recipe, it's the Chef.

Maybe? But, like, look at Shakespeare. Cymbeline, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Pericles... he's got some real stinkers. Sometimes even the greats who are passionate about a subject make bad art. Several of these easily slot into the "bad, but likeable" category, but Pericles is trash. Hell, Spielberg, even staying within just film, made 1941, which.... yeah.

 

[jaF0]

Silly? You want Silly?

'Porky's'
'Animal House'
'Revenge Of The Nerds'
The 'Scary Movie' series

And so on ...