Well I remmeber seeing Rocky IV in the cinema and at the time I really liked good (us the west) against bad (the east), I can say the same of Rambo III and others, going to the movie back then was alwyas fun.
In more recent days maybe 1900 from Bertolucci (on Bertolucci special at the Cinemateca) some great acting performances totally wasted in propraganda crap
In 1988, when I was six, my family took me, the night before I was to start the first grade, to see the movie Nightfall. It was a PG-13 movie, but I’d seen those before, and just needed my eyes covered occasionally. Besides, this was based on a classic Isaac Asimov short story, and my parents were big sci-fi dorks, and figured I would grow up to be one too.
An hour-and-a-half later, my family had spent the worst experience we’ve ever had at the movie theater. I spent most of the movie with my eyes covered, but my mother’s hands weren’t quick enough to keep me from seeing, among other things, a man’s eyeballs being pecked out – an image that plagued my nightmares for a long time after that. My sister, then barely three, reached for my mother’s hand at some point during the movie, and pulled off her wedding ring, which went skipping across the floor, never to be seen by any of us again. Following the film, everyone’s mood was so poor that my parents began to argue after we went to bed, and the argument lasted for a few weeks until they decided to get a divorce (thankfully, they changed their mind and are still together 23 years later). The first day of first grade turned out to be pretty horrible as a result of my staying up late listening to the argument and generally being in a bad mood.
Worst movie experience ever. Batman Forever was awesome in comparison.
UAU that’s bad, I only went to the cinema with both my parents like never… I did went with my father once to see Ghostbusters I
hmmm… a lot of ones that misfired… Hard to narrow-down ‘worst’. And ones I disliked as a kid in the 50’s, evolved-into relative-watchables. My instincts are pretty reliable in-terms-of shelling-out cash at the cinema.
an effort to sit-thru:
Poltergeist 2
Obsession (dePalma)
Around The World Under The Sea
Candy
Marnie (Hitchcock)
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:78, topic:1959”]Yeah, it’s not fair, my first names are Simon Peter Maria (!), I studied some ancient Aramic as well as modern Arabic, my teacher was from Damascus …
[size=12pt]AND I NEVER SAW THE LIGHT ![/size][/quote]
But it is so easy to see the light of 2001 …
… even in 2011
The opposite is calling silly films ambitious?
Yes, ambitious, intelligent, deep, whatever
What I mean is this: The idea behind many works of art that are called ambitious, intelligent, deep etc. are quite simple, and often silly, but it doesn’t matter because they’re entertaining, compelling or whatever. Shakespeare Othello is a good example. The story isn’t great, some story elements or plots twists a bit ludicrous, but it’s tremendously well-written and has one of the greatest villains in history, Iago. Shakespeare’s plays often have ludicrous plot twists, but he’s such a good writer that it doesn’t matter.
Yes, but Shakespeare’s stories and many of his plot twists were written a few centuries ago, and were probably quite inventive then, but look naive nowadays.
And I don’t think that the idea behind 2001 is simple. And of course is not the idea behind it the real strength of 2001, but the way Kubrick turns it into pictures and narrative ideas.
I think you can call 2001 (or many other “ambitious” films) boring or pretentious or maybe “not as intelligent as some may think”, but I don’t think it is a silly film. The story and the form Kubrick uses to tell the story is still very unusual and riveting.
So far 2001 has aged very well imo.
A lot of the films mentioned in this thread are good. 
And by the way, the argument about 2001 is ridiculous. It’s simply an amazing film and arguing that it’s a bad film to see at the cinema is wrong. If it’s truly the worst thing you have seen at the cinema, you don’t go to the cinema enough.
[quote=“TheBigSmokedown, post:89, topic:1959”]A lot of the films mentioned in this thread are good. 
(…) arguing that it’s a bad film to see at the cinema is wrong.[/quote]
That’s not what I said, or meant to say: It worked for me better on TV. I had seen it twice in cinema then, was familiar with the visual aspect of the movie, and could concentrate better on the content now I was watching it on a smaller screen. I also watched it with different eyes: I wanted to find out why so many people were impressed by it (and not just by the visuals and the music)
It’s not really the worst I’ve seen in cinema, but if I mention an obscure Dutch or Belgian movie nobody’s ever heard of, we have no discussion.
It is not ridiculous as 2001 is not an amazing film for everyone. And if someone is bored by 2001, then I see no reason for this person to call 2001 a bad film. Still even then, I don’t think it is a silly film.
But I agree most, if not all films so far mentioned are not really bad. They might be boring or disappointing for some, but there is worse to be seen in theatres. Much worse.
At least I have different ideas what a real bad film is.
Yes to you they are, but tastes are this big democracy.
To be honest when I was a kid and a young teen going to the cinema was always fun, regardless of the film, and later it was only a reason for a date most of the times, the all affair ended when I start to be critic about films.
So true.
The worst film I’ve seen at the cinema (a long time ago) is without doubt L’Executrice (1986), directed by Michel Caputo.
In confirmation of my opinion (2/10)… 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091025/ratings-top_1000
[quote=“JonathanCorbett, post:94, topic:1959”]The worst film I’ve seen at the cinema (a long time ago) is without doubt L’Executrice (1986), directed by Michel Caputo.
In confirmation of my opinion (2/10)…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091025/ratings-top_1000[/quote]
This thread is funny allright, what I would give to see a film with Brigite Lahaie in the cinema ;D, anyway anything with Lahaie is good for me lol
She is blameless, but can’t rescue the film from disaster! ;D
Sorry. To tell the truth, I didn’t read the debate properly. I just thought it was bizarre that such a movie would be brought up in a topic like this.
It would at least be honest. Plus I’m pretty sure that you have an audience here which will be able to form an opinion on some very obscure films.
Of course. However, I think by basic standards of film-making a lot of the films mentioned are not so bad.
You’re probably right, but did you take a look at sartana1968 20 best SW list, this philosophical discussions about aesthetics are always subjectivs.
And because of this I will watch 2001 tomorrow lol, last time I saw it in TV was some 15 years ago or maybe more, I confess I wasn’t much impressed but it was a long time ago so I can’t make a propper judgement. At least it didn’t hit so strong like Tarkowsky films did (Solaris or The Stalker)
I’ve planned to rewatch 2001 too, so if others got the same idea, it has been a fruitful discussion (so far)
Don’t get me wrong, I think 2001 has its faults. The monkey suit stuff still doesn’t sit well with me and nor does the space baby. Everything else about it is simply spellbinding, however. When you take into consideration when the film was actually made, it’s genuinely mind-blowing.
And yes, El Topo, I have seen sartana1968’s Top 20 list.