I guess that's where our disconnect is coming from. I felt nothing during that scene that could be described as catharsis. There was the initial shock and confusion (why is he doing this?) and then horror for the character. A single racist lady out of a big crowd didn't justify anything for me, and even if it had not been just her, that wouldn't justify violence of any sort.
If someone there had physically attacked him then maybe, but that didn't happen.
I felt thoroughly sick during that scene. I considered walking out. And not because what was happening was horrible, but because the movie wanted to make it cool to be a madman shooting people in a church. That's the message I was getting -- Movie, to me, "This is cool! Look, see how that parishioner got stabbed in the head with a cross? Wow! Oh look, here's Colin Firth setting a pastor's face on fire! Yeah! Wicked!"
In Tarantino films, most of the time when something really bad happens, it's either a bad guy doing it to a good guy, in which case it isn't given the same cool treatment as the reverse -- or it's a good guy doing it to bad guys. It's like, okay, yes, being brutally violent to anyone is really really awful. It is. I don't condone it. I can't condone it. There's no reason to beat someone to death with a club -- there are better ways to get what you want.
And then now I'm sitting here wondering why it is that I don't have a visceral, negative reaction to the Tarantino movies, whereas in Kingsman's church scene I nearly walked out. I guess I thought Kingsman crossed a line. The Westboro Baptist Church is a bad organization, but it is not okay to get an audience to cheer on their brutal dismemberment and death.
Okay, I think that's what I'm honing in on -- With Tarantino, I think it's okay that he cheers on the deaths of slavers and nazis. Even though I recognize that such violence is wrong -- even when directed towards evil people -- I suppose it's okay to get some part of us to cheer on when those evil people get their just deserts. But I'm not okay when a movie gets us to cheer on violence against a person or group who doesn't deserve it.
And yeah, the film does have some exposition where everyone in the movie thinks what Colin Firth did was disgusting and wrong -- but the movie itself didn't portray its own violence that way. They should have shown it in a wide shot, in a totally different way than the violence directed towards bad guys. If they wanted us to feel like it was wrong, they should have filmed it the same way you'd film an atrocity.
Or something. I dunno. I was just disgusted by it.
What is a horror movie with good character logic? Where the supporting cast/victims react intelligently to danger but still wind up dead through no fault of their own?
Would Final Destination apply to the "not idiots" requirement?
Part of why I hate them is that there's no villain, you're just waiting for these kids to die, but it's rarely because they do something specifically stupid.
Hollywood is all about the disconnect between... everything and everything. Everything Hollywood is against in reality they endorse in their movies and vice versa because the vast majority of the time all they REALLY care about is money.
Hollywood is all about the disconnect between... everything and everything. Everything Hollywood is against in reality they endorse in their movies and vice versa because the vast majority of the time all they REALLY care about is money*.
I guess that's where our disconnect is coming from. I felt nothing during that scene that could be described as catharsis. There was the initial shock and confusion (why is he doing this?) and then horror for the character. A single racist lady out of a big crowd didn't justify anything for me, and even if it had not been just her, that wouldn't justify violence of any sort.
If someone there had physically attacked him then maybe, but that didn't happen.
I felt thoroughly sick during that scene. I considered walking out. And not because what was happening was horrible, but because the movie wanted to make it cool to be a madman shooting people in a church. That's the message I was getting -- Movie, to me, "This is cool! Look, see how that parishioner got stabbed in the head with a cross? Wow! Oh look, here's Colin Firth setting a pastor's face on fire! Yeah! Wicked!"
In Tarantino films, most of the time when something really bad happens, it's either a bad guy doing it to a good guy, in which case it isn't given the same cool treatment as the reverse -- or it's a good guy doing it to bad guys. It's like, okay, yes, being brutally violent to anyone is really really awful. It is. I don't condone it. I can't condone it. There's no reason to beat someone to death with a club -- there are better ways to get what you want.
And then now I'm sitting here wondering why it is that I don't have a visceral, negative reaction to the Tarantino movies, whereas in Kingsman's church scene I nearly walked out. I guess I thought Kingsman crossed a line. The Westboro Baptist Church is a bad organization, but it is not okay to get an audience to cheer on their brutal dismemberment and death.
Okay, I think that's what I'm honing in on -- With Tarantino, I think it's okay that he cheers on the deaths of slavers and nazis. Even though I recognize that such violence is wrong -- even when directed towards evil people -- I suppose it's okay to get some part of us to cheer on when those evil people get their just deserts. But I'm not okay when a movie gets us to cheer on violence against a person or group who doesn't deserve it.
And yeah, the film does have some exposition where everyone in the movie thinks what Colin Firth did was disgusting and wrong -- but the movie itself didn't portray its own violence that way. They should have shown it in a wide shot, in a totally different way than the violence directed towards bad guys. If they wanted us to feel like it was wrong, they should have filmed it the same way you'd film an atrocity.
Or something. I dunno. I was just disgusted by it.
It seems odd to me you're ignoring the context of that scene.
It is the bad guy's evil horrific super weapon and it's use is indeed evil and horrific because it warps your perception to not view it as evil and horrific while it's being used on you.
Tarantino definitely found the point at which even violence against nazis became unwatchable (for me anyway).
I spent the rest of that film hoping Brad Pitt would eat a bullet (sadly not) and then the few characters I did care about remotely died. If IB was supposed to get me rooting for the nazi hunters it... didn't do it right. They were something more akin to Dexter; unrepentantly evil monsters who just happen to have targeted bad people.
Tarantino definitely found the point at which even violence against nazis became unwatchable (for me anyway).
I spent the rest of that film hoping Brad Pitt would eat a bullet (sadly not) and then the few characters I did care about remotely died. If IB was supposed to get me rooting for the nazi hunters it... didn't do it right. They were something more akin to Dexter; unrepentantly evil monsters who just happen to have targeted bad people.
What is a horror movie with good character logic? Where the supporting cast/victims react intelligently to danger but still wind up dead through no fault of their own?
What is a horror movie with good character logic? Where the supporting cast/victims react intelligently to danger but still wind up dead through no fault of their own?
I guess that's where our disconnect is coming from. I felt nothing during that scene that could be described as catharsis. There was the initial shock and confusion (why is he doing this?) and then horror for the character. A single racist lady out of a big crowd didn't justify anything for me, and even if it had not been just her, that wouldn't justify violence of any sort.
If someone there had physically attacked him then maybe, but that didn't happen.
I felt thoroughly sick during that scene. I considered walking out. And not because what was happening was horrible, but because the movie wanted to make it cool to be a madman shooting people in a church. That's the message I was getting -- Movie, to me, "This is cool! Look, see how that parishioner got stabbed in the head with a cross? Wow! Oh look, here's Colin Firth setting a pastor's face on fire! Yeah! Wicked!"
In Tarantino films, most of the time when something really bad happens, it's either a bad guy doing it to a good guy, in which case it isn't given the same cool treatment as the reverse -- or it's a good guy doing it to bad guys. It's like, okay, yes, being brutally violent to anyone is really really awful. It is. I don't condone it. I can't condone it. There's no reason to beat someone to death with a club -- there are better ways to get what you want.
And then now I'm sitting here wondering why it is that I don't have a visceral, negative reaction to the Tarantino movies, whereas in Kingsman's church scene I nearly walked out. I guess I thought Kingsman crossed a line. The Westboro Baptist Church is a bad organization, but it is not okay to get an audience to cheer on their brutal dismemberment and death.
Okay, I think that's what I'm honing in on -- With Tarantino, I think it's okay that he cheers on the deaths of slavers and nazis. Even though I recognize that such violence is wrong -- even when directed towards evil people -- I suppose it's okay to get some part of us to cheer on when those evil people get their just deserts. But I'm not okay when a movie gets us to cheer on violence against a person or group who doesn't deserve it.
And yeah, the film does have some exposition where everyone in the movie thinks what Colin Firth did was disgusting and wrong -- but the movie itself didn't portray its own violence that way. They should have shown it in a wide shot, in a totally different way than the violence directed towards bad guys. If they wanted us to feel like it was wrong, they should have filmed it the same way you'd film an atrocity.
Or something. I dunno. I was just disgusted by it.
It seems odd to me you're ignoring the context of that scene.
It is the bad guy's evil horrific super weapon and it's use is indeed evil and horrific because it warps your perception to not view it as evil and horrific while it's being used on you.
When the bad guy's evil horrific super weapon is used later in the film, the violence is distant, not visceral, or deeply horrifying (the mother attacking her own baby). The church scene makes a strong contrast to that later sequence, which is meant to be a serious part of the plot. They could have shot that the same way, or set up the scene such that the victims weren't stand-ins for a universally hated religious group, but they didn't.
Tarantino definitely found the point at which even violence against nazis became unwatchable (for me anyway).
I spent the rest of that film hoping Brad Pitt would eat a bullet (sadly not) and then the few characters I did care about remotely died. If IB was supposed to get me rooting for the nazi hunters it... didn't do it right. They were something more akin to Dexter; unrepentantly evil monsters who just happen to have targeted bad people.
That's not anything like being good.
I really don't think it was trying to make you root for them. One, beyond the generic "Nazi's are bad" assumption, IB didn't show the "good" guys actually being physically or emotionally harmed directly. That's your normal basis for excusing brutal revenge and violence (see John Wick). Two, all the violence shown is uni-directional. Ambushes and slaughter of Nazi's with no resistance. Three, the moments leading up to the bat are like the climax of a revenge flick, including the music. Yet at that moment, the music disappears and you're just left with sudden, short, and graphic brutality. Again, the "bad" guy doesn't fight back, there's no exciting "duel" between them, no stylish or embellished action, just a guy pummeling a twitching body into paste accompanied by the cheers of his friends. Inglorious bastards really is a very appropriate moniker for them.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
I think you're still projecting a bit, though. I didn't see them as stand-ins for anything. And apparently I'm not alone in that. I mean, I'm an atheist and I'll hate on religion with the best of them, but a bunch of people in a church and a racist woman do not equal a free pass for pain and suffering. Then again, I'm not American either, so it could be I'm missing some extra contextual baggage.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
This is that fantasy list for easy perusing minus commentary, and I realize I need to watch some of these movies:
18. Cave Dwellers (AKA Ator l’invincibile 2, The Blade Master, Day of The Sword Man—1984)
17. Krull (1983)
16. Highlander (1986)
15. Masters of the Universe (1987)
14. The Black Cauldron (1985)
13. The Beastmaster (1982)
12. Excalibur (1981)
11. Clash of the Titans (1981)
10. Legend (1985)
9. Willow (1988)
8. Labyrinth (1986)
7. The Last Unicorn (1982)
6. Conan the Barbarian (1982)
5. Dragonslayer (1981)
4. Ladyhawke (1985)
3. The Dark Crystal (1982)
2. The Princess Bride (1987)
1. The Neverending Story (1984)
I need to check out Legend, Ladyhawke, Last Unicorn, and Dragonslayer sounds hella cool. Don't care to see Krull or Cave Dwellers, and probably need to watch Highlander with full attention.
I just remember watching Excalibur a few times as a kid and my parents not really grapsing it's not like that Camelot movie from the 60's, there's blood everywhere all the time and it always made me realize Lancelot's a super asshole (ha! Richard Gere! Get it!?). Guinevere too.
Dragonslayer is a really good movie, in large part because it does have the deeper themes, like the supercedence of paganism by Christianity. And Verminithrax is pretty much the model for all modern movie dragons since.
This is that fantasy list for easy perusing minus commentary, and I realize I need to watch some of these movies:
18. Cave Dwellers (AKA Ator l’invincibile 2, The Blade Master, Day of The Sword Man—1984)
17. Krull (1983)
16. Highlander (1986)
15. Masters of the Universe (1987)
14. The Black Cauldron (1985)
13. The Beastmaster (1982)
12. Excalibur (1981)
11. Clash of the Titans (1981)
10. Legend (1985)
9. Willow (1988)
8. Labyrinth (1986)
7. The Last Unicorn (1982)
6. Conan the Barbarian (1982)
5. Dragonslayer (1981)
4. Ladyhawke (1985)
3. The Dark Crystal (1982)
2. The Princess Bride (1987)
1. The Neverending Story (1984)
I need to check out Legend, Ladyhawke, Last Unicorn, and Dragonslayer sounds hella cool. Don't care to see Krull or Cave Dwellers, and probably need to watch Highlander with full attention.
I just remember watching Excalibur a few times as a kid and my parents not really grapsing it's not like that Camelot movie from the 60's, there's blood everywhere all the time and it always made me realize Lancelot's a super asshole (ha! Richard Gere! Get it!?). Guinevere too.
Dragonslayer was really meh. Slow meandering hero's journey that takes a really long time to say very little (and what is does have to say is just that fantasy heroes slaying dragons is silly, magic can't solve your problems, and the cool weapons you spent half the movie acquiring are crap and dragon will eat you). The only good thing about it is that it's kind of a well-realized low-magic (semi) realistic fantasy setting. The final act of the film is an absolute mess.
I think it was better received by critics at the time than other fantasy films is because critics don't actually like heroic fantasy so a film about a loser who
fails to save princesses
and spends most of the film hiding appealed to their sense of perversity.
I give it a C- if you were actually living in the 1980s. If you watch it now it's just hot garbage.
Both Conan movies are far more entertaining. The first one is also better acted (Grace Jones clearly carried the second one).
This is that fantasy list for easy perusing minus commentary, and I realize I need to watch some of these movies:
18. Cave Dwellers (AKA Ator l’invincibile 2, The Blade Master, Day of The Sword Man—1984)
17. Krull (1983)
16. Highlander (1986)
15. Masters of the Universe (1987)
14. The Black Cauldron (1985)
13. The Beastmaster (1982)
12. Excalibur (1981)
11. Clash of the Titans (1981)
10. Legend (1985)
9. Willow (1988)
8. Labyrinth (1986)
7. The Last Unicorn (1982)
6. Conan the Barbarian (1982)
5. Dragonslayer (1981)
4. Ladyhawke (1985)
3. The Dark Crystal (1982)
2. The Princess Bride (1987)
1. The Neverending Story (1984)
I need to check out Legend, Ladyhawke, Last Unicorn, and Dragonslayer sounds hella cool. Don't care to see Krull or Cave Dwellers, and probably need to watch Highlander with full attention.
I just remember watching Excalibur a few times as a kid and my parents not really grapsing it's not like that Camelot movie from the 60's, there's blood everywhere all the time and it always made me realize Lancelot's a super asshole (ha! Richard Gere! Get it!?). Guinevere too.
Dragonslayer is bitching. Watch it. You won't regret it.
Practical effects up the wazoo. Interesting characters. Great dialogue. Good hero.
Excuse me, sir. I believe I see both Ator and Beastmaster on that list, and the author described it as an attempt to be exhaustive (ie: include bad films in the ranking as well as good). The former is inarguably worse than Red Sonja by every conceivable metric and is merely rendered watchable, not good, not entertaining, just barely watchable by being viewed in the MST3K format. The latter is only better if you don't mind an adorable ferret dying at the end, I do (and as a child I really really minded) but not by much. If you are an animal lover you're better off with Red Sonja by miles.
Also the fact that he ranks Highlander so low on his list is very suspect. Highlander 12 places below fucking Ladyhawke? I think this list was compiled by a bored film snob. I wonder what such a person was doing watching cheesy 80's fantasy fare anyway.
Excuse me, sir. I believe I see both Ator and Beastmaster on that list, and the author described it as an attempt to be exhaustive (ie: include bad films in the ranking as well as good). The former is inarguably worse than Red Sonja by every conceivable metric and is merely rendered watchable, not good, not entertaining, just barely watchable by being viewed in the MST3K format. The latter is only better if you don't mind an adorable ferret dying at the end, I do (and as a child I really really minded) but not by much. If you are an animal lover you're better off with Red Sonja by miles.
:huh:
You remember they throw a toddler into a sacrificial pyre in that same movie, right?
Excuse me, sir. I believe I see both Ator and Beastmaster on that list, and the author described it as an attempt to be exhaustive (ie: include bad films in the ranking as well as good). The former is inarguably worse than Red Sonja by every conceivable metric and is merely rendered watchable, not good, not entertaining, just barely watchable by being viewed in the MST3K format. The latter is only better if you don't mind an adorable ferret dying at the end, I do (and as a child I really really minded) but not by much. If you are an animal lover you're better off with Red Sonja by miles.
:huh:
You remember they throw a toddler into a sacrificial pyre in that same movie, right?
Fuck the dark crystal and fuck Henson for making it. Not only did it give me nightmares galore as a child it didn't even have the decency to improve upon later viewing as an adult.
Fuck the dark crystal and fuck Henson for making it. Not only did it give me nightmares galore as a child it didn't even have the decency to improve upon later viewing as an adult.
Excuse me, sir. I believe I see both Ator and Beastmaster on that list, and the author described it as an attempt to be exhaustive (ie: include bad films in the ranking as well as good). The former is inarguably worse than Red Sonja by every conceivable metric and is merely rendered watchable, not good, not entertaining, just barely watchable by being viewed in the MST3K format. The latter is only better if you don't mind an adorable ferret dying at the end, I do (and as a child I really really minded) but not by much. If you are an animal lover you're better off with Red Sonja by miles.
Well I can understand the complaint that Red Sonja belongs on there if the list is to be comprehensive. But it must be rated as the very worst movie of all time. Ator is crap because it was crap from the beginning. No budget, no actors, no nothing. Beastmaster was a shitty premise with shitty actors (except for Rip Torn).
But Red Sonja took an interesting setting, semi-decent actors (Arnold, Bergman, Paul Smith) and a sword and sorcery movie with a budget and turned it into absolute fecal material. Also, protip, the protagonist must be able to act.
Excuse me, sir. I believe I see both Ator and Beastmaster on that list, and the author described it as an attempt to be exhaustive (ie: include bad films in the ranking as well as good). The former is inarguably worse than Red Sonja by every conceivable metric and is merely rendered watchable, not good, not entertaining, just barely watchable by being viewed in the MST3K format. The latter is only better if you don't mind an adorable ferret dying at the end, I do (and as a child I really really minded) but not by much. If you are an animal lover you're better off with Red Sonja by miles.
Well I can understand the complaint that Red Sonja belongs on there if the list is to be comprehensive. But it must be rated as the very worst movie of all time. Ator is crap because it was crap from the beginning. No budget, no actors, no nothing. Beastmaster was a shitty premise with shitty actors (except for Rip Torn).
But Red Sonja took an interesting setting, semi-decent actors (Arnold, Bergman, Paul Smith) and a sword and sorcery movie with a budget and turned it into absolute fecal material. Also, protip, the protagonist must be able to act.
Sandahl Bergman can act though. She was great in Conan The Barbarian, and moderately entertaining in Sonja.
They should have had her play Sonja and had Nielsen play a lamppost or something.
Posts
I was pleasantly surprised.
I felt thoroughly sick during that scene. I considered walking out. And not because what was happening was horrible, but because the movie wanted to make it cool to be a madman shooting people in a church. That's the message I was getting -- Movie, to me, "This is cool! Look, see how that parishioner got stabbed in the head with a cross? Wow! Oh look, here's Colin Firth setting a pastor's face on fire! Yeah! Wicked!"
In Tarantino films, most of the time when something really bad happens, it's either a bad guy doing it to a good guy, in which case it isn't given the same cool treatment as the reverse -- or it's a good guy doing it to bad guys. It's like, okay, yes, being brutally violent to anyone is really really awful. It is. I don't condone it. I can't condone it. There's no reason to beat someone to death with a club -- there are better ways to get what you want.
And then now I'm sitting here wondering why it is that I don't have a visceral, negative reaction to the Tarantino movies, whereas in Kingsman's church scene I nearly walked out. I guess I thought Kingsman crossed a line. The Westboro Baptist Church is a bad organization, but it is not okay to get an audience to cheer on their brutal dismemberment and death.
Okay, I think that's what I'm honing in on -- With Tarantino, I think it's okay that he cheers on the deaths of slavers and nazis. Even though I recognize that such violence is wrong -- even when directed towards evil people -- I suppose it's okay to get some part of us to cheer on when those evil people get their just deserts. But I'm not okay when a movie gets us to cheer on violence against a person or group who doesn't deserve it.
And yeah, the film does have some exposition where everyone in the movie thinks what Colin Firth did was disgusting and wrong -- but the movie itself didn't portray its own violence that way. They should have shown it in a wide shot, in a totally different way than the violence directed towards bad guys. If they wanted us to feel like it was wrong, they should have filmed it the same way you'd film an atrocity.
Or something. I dunno. I was just disgusted by it.
Evil Dead reboot.
There's a villain. It's fate/death.
* excluding Michael Bay
It seems odd to me you're ignoring the context of that scene.
It is the bad guy's evil horrific super weapon and it's use is indeed evil and horrific because it warps your perception to not view it as evil and horrific while it's being used on you.
I spent the rest of that film hoping Brad Pitt would eat a bullet (sadly not) and then the few characters I did care about remotely died. If IB was supposed to get me rooting for the nazi hunters it... didn't do it right. They were something more akin to Dexter; unrepentantly evil monsters who just happen to have targeted bad people.
That's not anything like being good.
well then you're in luck.
???
Because there ain't no extruded fantasy product like 80s extruded fantasy product.
I think there was only one thing on that list I haven't seen (Ladyhawke). Oh, wait, I guess I never saw Cave Dwellers, either.
The rest are all classics in my heart of nostalgic hearts.
When the bad guy's evil horrific super weapon is used later in the film, the violence is distant, not visceral, or deeply horrifying (the mother attacking her own baby). The church scene makes a strong contrast to that later sequence, which is meant to be a serious part of the plot. They could have shot that the same way, or set up the scene such that the victims weren't stand-ins for a universally hated religious group, but they didn't.
I really don't think it was trying to make you root for them. One, beyond the generic "Nazi's are bad" assumption, IB didn't show the "good" guys actually being physically or emotionally harmed directly. That's your normal basis for excusing brutal revenge and violence (see John Wick). Two, all the violence shown is uni-directional. Ambushes and slaughter of Nazi's with no resistance. Three, the moments leading up to the bat are like the climax of a revenge flick, including the music. Yet at that moment, the music disappears and you're just left with sudden, short, and graphic brutality. Again, the "bad" guy doesn't fight back, there's no exciting "duel" between them, no stylish or embellished action, just a guy pummeling a twitching body into paste accompanied by the cheers of his friends. Inglorious bastards really is a very appropriate moniker for them.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
18. Cave Dwellers (AKA Ator l’invincibile 2, The Blade Master, Day of The Sword Man—1984)
17. Krull (1983)
16. Highlander (1986)
15. Masters of the Universe (1987)
14. The Black Cauldron (1985)
13. The Beastmaster (1982)
12. Excalibur (1981)
11. Clash of the Titans (1981)
10. Legend (1985)
9. Willow (1988)
8. Labyrinth (1986)
7. The Last Unicorn (1982)
6. Conan the Barbarian (1982)
5. Dragonslayer (1981)
4. Ladyhawke (1985)
3. The Dark Crystal (1982)
2. The Princess Bride (1987)
1. The Neverending Story (1984)
I need to check out Legend, Ladyhawke, Last Unicorn, and Dragonslayer sounds hella cool. Don't care to see Krull or Cave Dwellers, and probably need to watch Highlander with full attention.
I just remember watching Excalibur a few times as a kid and my parents not really grapsing it's not like that Camelot movie from the 60's, there's blood everywhere all the time and it always made me realize Lancelot's a super asshole (ha! Richard Gere! Get it!?). Guinevere too.
Also, yeah, The Last Unicorn isn't exactly a great movie, but I dig it all the same.
Dragonslayer was really meh. Slow meandering hero's journey that takes a really long time to say very little (and what is does have to say is just that fantasy heroes slaying dragons is silly, magic can't solve your problems, and the cool weapons you spent half the movie acquiring are crap and dragon will eat you). The only good thing about it is that it's kind of a well-realized low-magic (semi) realistic fantasy setting. The final act of the film is an absolute mess.
I think it was better received by critics at the time than other fantasy films is because critics don't actually like heroic fantasy so a film about a loser who
I give it a C- if you were actually living in the 1980s. If you watch it now it's just hot garbage.
Both Conan movies are far more entertaining. The first one is also better acted (Grace Jones clearly carried the second one).
It is a complete failure.
Dragonslayer is bitching. Watch it. You won't regret it.
Practical effects up the wazoo. Interesting characters. Great dialogue. Good hero.
Great movie.
I remember a scene in this where they're both hanged but they end up breaking their nooses when they sufficiently flex their neck muscles.
Completely disagree about Dragonslayer.
Also Red Sonja? Red Sonja?!!
I agree with Arnold on that movie. He stated "Schwarzenegger commented, "It's the worst film I have ever made." He joked, "Now, when my kids get out of line, they're sent to their room and forced to watch Red Sonja ten times. I never have too much trouble with them."
Excuse me, sir. I believe I see both Ator and Beastmaster on that list, and the author described it as an attempt to be exhaustive (ie: include bad films in the ranking as well as good). The former is inarguably worse than Red Sonja by every conceivable metric and is merely rendered watchable, not good, not entertaining, just barely watchable by being viewed in the MST3K format. The latter is only better if you don't mind an adorable ferret dying at the end, I do (and as a child I really really minded) but not by much. If you are an animal lover you're better off with Red Sonja by miles.
:huh:
You remember they throw a toddler into a sacrificial pyre in that same movie, right?
Clearly a protected religious ceremony.
The ferret, however, was not.
I'm pretty sure this is you, Regina:
It is the only explanation.
Fuck the dark crystal and fuck Henson for making it. Not only did it give me nightmares galore as a child it didn't even have the decency to improve upon later viewing as an adult.
It is a bad film.
...
Trial by Stone.
Well I can understand the complaint that Red Sonja belongs on there if the list is to be comprehensive. But it must be rated as the very worst movie of all time. Ator is crap because it was crap from the beginning. No budget, no actors, no nothing. Beastmaster was a shitty premise with shitty actors (except for Rip Torn).
But Red Sonja took an interesting setting, semi-decent actors (Arnold, Bergman, Paul Smith) and a sword and sorcery movie with a budget and turned it into absolute fecal material. Also, protip, the protagonist must be able to act.
aside for David Bowie.
I'd switch DC's spot for Labyrinth and call the list fairly complete.
Sandahl Bergman can act though. She was great in Conan The Barbarian, and moderately entertaining in Sonja.
They should have had her play Sonja and had Nielsen play a lamppost or something.