*{-Lily(<3)Rain-}*
New member
I have only really skimmed the surface of shit really with the ones i have listed there.
You see, the way i gauge shit films is ones that have a decent budget and a decent cast should be given more ridicule than the cheap and nasty straight to video/DVD detritus like, i dunno, Jack Frost(a truly dreadful and cheap horror movie about a killer snowman) or The Erotic Witch Project(a derisory softporn version of the then-overly hyped horror film The Blair Witch Project) because the people who make those films know they're making something that the majority of people are going to say "this film is really bad" but the Hollywood films that have a budget of $50 million dollars think they're making something thats got great production values, a top notch greenlit script and a cast of talented people, and yes on paper they do but onscreen, they don't and they deserve every bit of negative criticism that comes their way.
For example, i remember a pair of films came out called Mission To Mars and Red Planet, two films about, erm, astronauts going to Mars and then 'fings start to go wrong innit' and thats both plots in a proverbial nutshell so despite the casts and special effects, both films were dire and about as exciting as flicking through a carpet sample catalogue, so it makes you think "why is it John Carpenter can spend next to nothing on Dark Star and make a genuinely enjoyable movie out of that and then these hacks have spent something close to a Third World Debt on making this load of garbage?".
I also noticed i forgot to add the Robert Zemeckis-helmed shitfest What Lies Beneath to my list too
You see, the way i gauge shit films is ones that have a decent budget and a decent cast should be given more ridicule than the cheap and nasty straight to video/DVD detritus like, i dunno, Jack Frost(a truly dreadful and cheap horror movie about a killer snowman) or The Erotic Witch Project(a derisory softporn version of the then-overly hyped horror film The Blair Witch Project) because the people who make those films know they're making something that the majority of people are going to say "this film is really bad" but the Hollywood films that have a budget of $50 million dollars think they're making something thats got great production values, a top notch greenlit script and a cast of talented people, and yes on paper they do but onscreen, they don't and they deserve every bit of negative criticism that comes their way.
For example, i remember a pair of films came out called Mission To Mars and Red Planet, two films about, erm, astronauts going to Mars and then 'fings start to go wrong innit' and thats both plots in a proverbial nutshell so despite the casts and special effects, both films were dire and about as exciting as flicking through a carpet sample catalogue, so it makes you think "why is it John Carpenter can spend next to nothing on Dark Star and make a genuinely enjoyable movie out of that and then these hacks have spent something close to a Third World Debt on making this load of garbage?".
I also noticed i forgot to add the Robert Zemeckis-helmed shitfest What Lies Beneath to my list too
