I thought it was well-done, I've seen it twice.
- eddstarr88 viewing: Official Categories
Controls
- 5 years 5 months ago
- Posts: 74809
MattNash wrote:As for "Bugs", I've never even heard of that movie. I looks like it might be a direct to DVD low budget horror. If it is, that disqualifies it from this discussion.
Nah, it wasn't direct to DVD. It was shown in the theaters, which is where I saw it. Completely fucking boring and pretty much most of it was shacky camera work and schizoid induced dialogue.
Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No - 5 years 5 months ago
- Posts: 4312
- Account Disabled
Saruman_w wrote:MattNash wrote:As for "Bugs", I've never even heard of that movie. I looks like it might be a direct to DVD low budget horror. If it is, that disqualifies it from this discussion.
Nah, it wasn't direct to DVD. It was shown in the theaters, which is where I saw it. Completely fucking boring and pretty much most of it was shacky camera work and schizoid induced dialogue.
Though I've never seen or heard of "Bug", I checked it's popularity with RottenTomatoes.com and it scored a 58%, compared to BFE which scored a 3%. I'd say that's a better movie.
Nei: Good choices.
Speed Racer: I never saw it, but heard it was pretty bad. But is it really worse than BFE?
X Men 3: I would say no. X Men 3 wasn't really a bad, it was enjoyable, it had good action and still had a lot of the great characters from the first two movies. It's major flaw was that it was such a let down from X2. It wasn't great, but it did have some redeeming things about it, unlike BFE which had nothing good about it at all.
Batman and Robin: Ooo, good one! B&R was pretty bad and I must say that is a pretty big contender so far. It does have one redeeming factor in that George Cloony was actually a pretty decent Bruce Wayne and probably more like the BW of the comic books then any other. Unfortunately, his role couldn't save the movie from the aweful script. If you notice, George Cloony is the only actor from that movie who didn't completely ruin his career because of that movie. As bad as it is, though, I'd still say BFE is worse. It had no good acting. Even Forest Whitaker, who's an awesome actor, sucked in that movie.
Superman 4: yeah, SM4 was pretty shitty. It's hard to say if it was worse than BFE, though. It does have camp value, and I liked it when I was a kid. It also had a good cast. But let's look at the Razzies, shall we? (The Razzies are kind of like the anti- oscars. They're the awards given to the worst movies) Superman 4 was nominated for 2 razzies, but didn't win either. Battlefield Earth won 8 razzies, including worst picture, worst actor, worst director and worst drama of the last 25 years (in 2005)
Now, how about Catwoman? Could that be worse?Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No 
- 5 years 4 months ago
- Posts: 534
MattNash wrote:
Batman and Robin: Ooo, good one! B&R was pretty bad and I must say that is a pretty big contender so far. It does have one redeeming factor in that George Cloony was actually a pretty decent Bruce Wayne and probably more like the BW of the comic books then any other. Unfortunately, his role couldn't save the movie from the aweful script. If you notice, George Cloony is the only actor from that movie who didn't completely ruin his career because of that movie. As bad as it is, though, I'd still say BFE is worse. It had no good acting. Even Forest Whitaker, who's an awesome actor, sucked in that movie.
Are you serious, I mean really. Aside from the fact he doesn't even resemble him...WTF?
And Forest was in it? Where? When?Garfield: "My car is so old, that it's insured against theft, flood, fire and dinosaur stampedes!"
Garfield: "The local bus transit is doing their part to help with the weight loss program: each year, they stop further and further away from the curb!Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No