I LOVE crappy movies, that's what's so good about them!

I'm planning on going to see Street Fighter this weekend, not because of the "action" or because I'm a Street Fighter fan, but because I heard it's so bad it's hilarious.

However, there are two kinds of crappy movies.

1] So bad it's funny and hence good.

2] So bad it's horrible.

Movies that fall into 1] are usually action/horror movies that aren't suppose to be funny [which is what's so good about them!]

2] are usually comedies that just make penis and boob jokes, like Epic Movie.

But yeah, I agree the number 2 movies [c wat i did thar?] is that they target brain dead teenagers who's heroes are Bevis and Butthead

It's just that these jokes are "cool"

Anyway, the last quality film I saw was the one with Daniel Craig in Russia during WWII [I forgot the name]

I don't think there's a demand for those kind of films anymore, most are targeted at the teenage demographic.

My personal take on the Street Fighter movie, unless you're talking about a new movie that I haven't heard of, is that the producer might as well have lit his money on fire. At least then you could have pointed at a pretty flame for a few minutes. I have done my best to wipe my mind of any fragments of its existence. Much llike I have done with Tom Green. If that's his name. I actually hope it isn't, since that would mean I've had great success in my efforts.

It is Tom Green.  And the Street Fighter movie being referred to is one that released this year.  Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li.  It was absolutely horrible and worth every cent that I spent to see it and every minute my brain addled.  Sometimes I don't want to think very hard.  I have the uncanny ability (and so does my partner) to grab up what must be the worst movie and, despite our criticisms of it, enjoy it.

Defiance. That was a great movie.

BTW, I love bad horrors and dramas, funnier than any intentionally funny movie.

I'm not dissing mainstream movies. There's been some amazing mainstream cinema, just like there's been some god-awful "artsy" film with no point.

I just can't stand people with no taste, who list crap as their FAVORITE films. I like Borat, which is stupid humor but also sort of genious. But I'm SO critical of films. I judge people on their taste in movies.

Most mainstream comedy just isn't funny anymore. The 80's and most of the 90's had a surge of great comedy, but then it just dissolved into pure garbage. Not to mention all the awesome, traditional hand-drawn animation has turned into a hyperactive Pixar-fest.

I'm with you.  I love good movies, but I also like some bad movies.  I had a film studies professor in college who said, "It's okay to like a bad movie, as long as you know it's bad."

Which is why I'm sure you'll be pleased that the new Head of Disney animation (ex-Pixar) has re-instated their 2D animation studio and they should have a suite of films coming out soon

I love Deep Blue Sea, if only for the moment when the "Kevin Costner" speech gets "interrupted" (trying to avoid spoilers, if anyone carse).  It's so bad it's good.

I'm also a fan of "Reign of Fire".  If only because of a freind's review: "Well... it's the best post-apocalyptic dragon movie you'l see!".

As far as the OP goes I think that people as a whole prefer the "bad" movies - and list them as favourites - because today's culture is one of instant gratification.  The bad films are easy.  No thought required and it made me laugh like a chimp ergo BEST MOVIE EVA ZOMG!!!!1  If we can't 'get' it in a really short space of time then it's Booooooooooooooooring.  It's sad but that's the way things seem to be.

A prime example was the movie Franklyn.  It's the first film I've been to in a while that large sections of the audience walked out of.  Don't get me wrong it wasn't a great movie but I at least got what it was trying to say*.  I think those that walked out did so because it was too complex and weird for their taste.

M

*Franklyn had the potential to be great but it was struck by the paradox of using one character to explicitly club you with the meaning of what was going on, and layering in needlessly self-indulgent 'high-art' references to the same.  What results is an overly long and self-involved treatment of what could have been a great movie about personal realities.

My take on movies is this: First and foremost, they are entertainment. Unless it's a documentary, I don't care what the moral of the story is, could care less about character development or anything else critics seem to nit pick about. My only requirment for a movie is...entertain me.

I think people over analyze movies to a point where they are looking for something wrong or some sort of hidden meaning to the movie, trying too much to disect the characters depth or development, instead of trying to enjoy the movie. People also get caught up in the 'realism' of the movie. Which makes me laugh. It's a movie (FICTION) and you are worried about how real it is? Seriously?

Another thing is, not every story is going to appeal to everyone. However, it doesn't take a genius to see when a production has cut corners or, the lighting was bad, the acting was bad, horrible compositing, etc...Those things will take the viewer out of the 'experience'. It may be fine if you have a great story and you have really fine tuned the script, but, if you fail to make sure everything else is tight...well, you get the picture. No pun intended.

There are exceptions to the rules above though. For example, Night of the Comet. Is it a great movie, heck no, not even close. Full of bad acting, cheesy special effects and plenty of 80s bad hair. However, it's entertaining. Another movie I find entertaining is Damnation Alley from the 70s. Bad acting, HORRIBLE special effects, plenty of plot holes, but, still entertaining.

The liking or disliking of movies is just like any other art form and is very subjective in my opinion.

Now for the state that Hollywood is in now...I think they have officially ran out of original ideas, which is demonstrated by all of the movie and tv remakes they have spit out at us in the last few years. However, I don't mind the continuing of established franchises like The Terminator, Star Trek, Star Wars, James Bond, etc... I will divorce myself completely from the movies if I ever see a Joanie Loves Chachi movie.

You might want to check out Shark Attack 3, Deadly Friend, Jack Frost, and Troll 2

My brother brings home bad movies and those are among the funniest I've seen.

Yes and No  

"Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick! The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?"

Don't forget special effects. It's amazingly cheap and fast to do something today that would have cost millions and countless hours 20 years ago.

Oh absolutely! You don't even have to go back that far. For Starship Troopers, the scene at the abandoned base where all the bugs surround it, took (if I remember correctly), something like 40 hours to render 1 frame.

Jack Frost was effing hilarious. If you want some other recommendations, although I imagine they would be incredibly difficult to find, you need to check out these two films. I'm positive that they are by far THE ABSOLUTE WORST movies in the universe, and therefore accidentally the funniest.

1) Return to Frogtown. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xx3tIP40ZE

And even worse still....

2) R.O.T.O.R. CLIP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHZQnpK_mgY

(Note: It's a robocop-esque horror film. Wait for the robocop to show up for the hilarity to start.)

 Holy Shit! I love youtube for having the these!!!

Not really. Army of Darkness is more like... campy. It's bad, but it knows it's bad. All of it was done entirely on purpose. Cheeziness was its goal, and it succeeded, and therefore it's good, and actually kind of smart.

It's the movies that genuinely fail that are bad.

Dude, that was an awesome movie. How could anyone call it bad?

Well...ok. The scene(s) where Jack was talking/reacting to "sasquatch" was a bit much, but the rest of the film was sweet. And the music was great. Except for in the same aforementioned scene.

Had a good plot, character development, the story was smooth, there was character adversity and obstacles to overcome. It should have been nominated for an Oscar.

lol.

Detective MANGO!

I am with you pretty much on the whole Hollywood pushing shit while letting good movies go unnoticed.  Hence Fast and Furious making shittons of money while Adventureland floundered.   HOWEVER do not diss Pixar.  Pixar puts out incredibly deep and heart-wrenching films that I am proud to place in my list of favorite films of all time (which would contain movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind rather than JTMD btw), not to mention the animation only becomes more and more breathtaking with each film.  I also miss 2D animation, which is why I am hoping the upcoming "The Bear and the Bow" does well, but just because studios like Dreamworks and Fox put out clusterf*&^s which they call movies like Space Chimps in response to Pixar movies like Wall-e (incredible!) doesn't mean Pixar ruined animation.  And to give credit where credit is due, not all Dreamworks animation movies are terrible (Shrek 1&2, Antz, and Kung Fu Panda are all a lot of fun), but I can't say the same for Fox.  Also, if you need the 2d animation, check out Waltz with Bashir or Persepolis, but very deep and adult tales which are done in 2d animation. 

enemy at the gates???  come on, man, BOB HOSKINS as krushchev?  as an avid reader of soviet history, i cringed when he walked in the door and introduced himself in that cockney accent as "niki'er krushchev."  as i recall, he even mispronounced krushchev, which is very common, but for a film, come on, do some casual research.  the "ev" on the end of krushchev should be pronounced the same as in gorbachev.

but bob hoskins and this film in general are part of my whole irritation with the cinema world's weird take on linguistic consistency (or lack thereof).  why do all the russians talk like londoners, but the germans speak german?  (another memory: a line from the protagonist's inner monologue at the beginning of the film as he draws a bead on a wolf: "oi pu' snow in moi mouf." )  why not get russian actors and give us subtitles?  are we really considered that retarded?  or just have everyone speak english?  god knows plenty of hollywood films have done that with stories involving multiple nationalities and, in my opinion, it's no more retarded and a lot less annoying.

another film that did this which was actually supposed to be a very intelligent film was roman polanski's "the pianist": all the polish speak english (though not cockney, thank god) and the germans speak german.  the most embarrassing moment in the film comes when a nazi soldier tries to communicate with polish jews in pidgin english which is actually supposed to be pidgin polish.

the MOST irritating example, however, is the recent straight-to-dvd release of a film about che guevara (not soderbergh's epic) which has ALL spanish-language actors and i bought it in the spanish section of wal-mart, and the whole thing was shot in ENGLISH.  shit, and i thought the 1969 film with omar sharif as che and JACK FUCKING PALANCE as fidel was awkward.

finally, let's not forget the most classic example: "robin hood, prince of thieves," in which every actor is either english or speaks with an english accent EXCEPT kevin costner, the fucking LEAD ROLE.