Buttmonkey wrote:I seriously LOVED Ice Pirates when I was a kid. I picked it up on DVD a few years ago and rewatched it. That was an excruciating experience. I had the same reaction rewatching Yellowbeard. Childhood me was an idiot with very little taste (although the scene in Yellowbeard where the British officer kicks the street urchin down the stairwell is still funny).
I, too, have discovered that The Ice Pirates does not age well... I was similarly disappointed in Strange Brew,though as a child I found it to be the height of comedy.
It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes.
What are you talking about, Strange Brew is Hamlet (really, it totally swipes the plot of Hamlet)?
Gringnr wrote:
Buttmonkey wrote:
I, too, have discovered that The Ice Pirates does not age well... I was similarly disappointed in Strange Brew,though as a child I found it to be the height of comedy.
Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:What are you talking about, Strange Brew is Hamlet (really, it totally swipes the plot of Hamlet)?
Gringnr wrote:
Buttmonkey wrote:
I, too, have discovered that The Ice Pirates does not age well... I was similarly disappointed in Strange Brew,though as a child I found it to be the height of comedy.
Yeah, and Clueless was based on Jane Austen's "Emma", but that doesn't mean it's aged well
It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes.
Is there hate for Dragonslayer on this thread?! Decent acting, good story, and in my mind hands-down the best dragon ever envisioned for the screen.
I might go with that old standby Krull - totally flat performances, misfired effects, slow pace, just a hard slog.
Honorable mention, though, to Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. In terms of budget and expectations vs. results. . . well I'm sure we all remember how much we enjoyed the elf/dwarf forbidden romance subplot.
spudeus wrote:Is there hate for Dragonslayer on this thread?! Decent acting, good story, and in my mind hands-down the best dragon ever envisioned for the screen.
I might go with that old standby Krull - totally flat performances, misfired effects, slow pace, just a hard slog.
Honorable mention, though, to Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. In terms of budget and expectations vs. results. . . well I'm sure we all remember how much we enjoyed the elf/dwarf forbidden romance subplot.
I could spend all day riffing off this post. I never cared for Dragonslayer. I found it slow-paced and disappointing as a kid. It didn't hold up to the sort of fantasy excitement I expected after playing D&D. I much preferred Krull.
Sadly, the forbidden dwarf/elf romance was about the only think I enjoyed in the 2nd and 3rd hobbit films. The guy playing Bilbo did some wonderful acting, but Bilbo frankly wasn't that central a character after the first movie. If you took Evangeline Lily out of the last two movies, I probably would have walked out or fallen asleep. I really hated the Hobbit films I suppose is my overall point.
tylermo wrote:Your efforts are greatly appreciated, Buttmonkey. Can't believe I said that with a straight face.
Dragonslayer owns, and has aged well. So has Conan the Barbarian, though its sequel sucked then and hasn't gotten any better.
Surprised there isn't more attention on the glut of bad sword & sorcery flicks from the 80s: Lucio Fulci's "Conquest", Don Coscarelli's "The Beastmaster", "The Sword and the Sorcerer" (which is actually a lot of fun), "Hawk the Slayer", "Sorceress" (which I think has already been mentioned), etc. Some of the movies mentioned here seem oscar-worthy in comparison. "Fire and Ice" wasn't perfect, but I dig it.
It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes.
Hmm, for what it's worth I own both Dragonslayer and Krull and watch them occasionally - and there are a few things I like about Krull like the cyclops and the creepy spider-web scene. But there's no accounting for taste!
On the swords & sandals 80s craze, I think we tend to give them a pass because of the camp/kitsch factor - they don't pretend to be anything other than goofy, low-brow, no-budget yarns. Films that aspire to be something higher - and fall flat - don't get any charity from viewers. E.g. I like Red Sonja although it's pretty darned bad.
Once I met a woman who (claimed to have) trained Beastmaster's ferret buddies. . . .
If you look on Netflix, there are scores of low-budget, campy, awful fantasy movies out there. Many of these were direct to video, SyFy nonsense, and the like. Until you have seen some of THOSE gems, there is no way anybody could consider Conan The Destroyer, DragonSlayer, or the like the worst fantasy movies.
~O
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@ VAE VICTUS! >> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<
spudeus wrote:Hmm, for what it's worth I own both Dragonslayer and Krull and watch them occasionally - and there are a few things I like about Krull like the cyclops and the creepy spider-web scene. But there's no accounting for taste!
On the swords & sandals 80s craze, I think we tend to give them a pass because of the camp/kitsch factor - they don't pretend to be anything other than goofy, low-brow, no-budget yarns. Films that aspire to be something higher - and fall flat - don't get any charity from viewers. E.g. I like Red Sonja although it's pretty darned bad.
Once I met a woman who (claimed to have) trained Beastmaster's ferret buddies. . . .
On some level, this is subjective. Artistic merits aside, I watched the CRAP out of The Beastmaster as a kid. I watched it many times, and my sister and I would turn down the playback speed on our VCR, and watch the swordfights in slo-mo over and over again.
It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes.
I've seen a few bad low budget fantasy movies on Mystery Science Theater, but I can't remember their names. Nevertheless, they were all low budget movies with no name actors and directors, so expectations were low anyway. Based on a bad per $ budget, the Hobbit Trilogy is by far the worse in my book. It's not just one really bad 90 minute movie, it's 3 really bad 3 1/2 hr movies. I enjoyed watching Martin Freeman play Bilbo, but that was it. The 1977 animated made-for-tv movie was far better in comparison.
Lurker wrote:Right now my vote is The never ending story ...
My wife decided to put it in for the girls tonight for Saturday evening movie knight . She complained that I have the girls watch Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, star dust, & Princess bride to often .
gifts to pakistan https://sahulatbazar.com/send-gift-to-pakistan/
I had forgotten how much I disliked this movie. I can't say specifically why I dislike it so, but it just rubs me the wrong way .... bad story, bad ideas, bad effects, .... Even as I watch it I want to re-like it , need for imagination or face nothing etc etc etc. But I just can't force myself to like it ...
So to make it interesting, what movie do you all dislike
Scorpion King and Son of the Mask.
Both were bad ideas and unbearable effects.
I don't know why such movies are being made. To tell you the truth,
I had a lot of expectations with Son of the Mask, but it was a disaster.
Oh my!! i have watched quite a number of unbearable fantasy movies because it is what i love watching but i have to say that
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale..did it for me.someone there, better keep to karate and martial arts movies.
Ghost-busters was an 'eeeeee'.. For me too.. i think there was just too much done in the movie.
I don't know if it's the worst movie ever. And as I kid I absolutely loved it. But I re-watched The Neverending Story recently. Tried to I mean. Oh boy has it aged...And very badly!
Kayolaan wrote:Highlander II: The Quickening (and all that followed)
Yeah. They were pretty bad. Greedy franchise owners pushing a story already concluded. I got top otc phentermine yesterday. But there are far worse out there. *shudder* unfortunately.
Far worse yes, I just posted what first came to mind
The Never Ending Story a bad movie? Right, you've gone too far. Have you not seen Son of the mask?
Bad sci-fi and fantasy movies aren't merely the province of low-budget quickies.
Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:Ice Pirates and Yellowbeard, yes! I also have Contravea soft spot for low-rent fantasy movies of the 80s. The Deathstalker series, Warrior and the Sorceress, Sword and the Sorcerer, I dig them quite a bit. Are they good? Hell no!
Ice Pirates? Had a serious crush on Mary Crosby back in the day...
Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:Ice Pirates and Yellowbeard, yes! I also have Contravea soft spot for low-rent fantasy movies of the 80s. The Deathstalker series, Warrior and the Sorceress, Sword and the Sorcerer, I dig them quite a bit. Are they good? Hell no!
Ice Pirates? Had a serious crush on Mary Crosby back in the day...
which movie is this...
Ice Pirates.
tylermo wrote:Your efforts are greatly appreciated, Buttmonkey. Can't believe I said that with a straight face.
Lurker wrote:Right now my vote is The never ending story ...
My wife decided to here put it in for the girls tonight for Saturday evening movie knight . She found this phenq where to buy helped alot complained that I have the girls watch Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, star dust, & Princess bride to often .
I had forgotten how much I disliked this movie. I can't say specifically why I dislike it so, but it just rubs me the wrong way .... bad story, bad ideas, bad effects, .... Even as I watch it I want to re-like it , need for imagination or face nothing etc etc etc. But I just can't force myself to like it ...
So to make it interesting, what movie do you all dislike
I also don't like the Star Wars series and Lord of the rings because they seem boring to me.
Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:Ice Pirates and Yellowbeard, yes! I also have a soft spot for low-rent fantasy movies of the 80s. The Deathstalker series, Warrior and the Sorceress, Sword and the Sorcerer, Andro I dig them quite a bit. Are they good? Hell no!
Ice Pirates? Had a serious crush on Mary Crosby back in the day...
I finally watched Yor: The Hunter from the Future, and have to say it's among the worst movies of all time (acting, writing).
He starts out in a stone age environment but ends up in a laser battle with androids. Sort of like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - if it were really, really bad!
Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:Ice Pirates and Yellowbeard, yes! I also have a soft spot for low-rent fantasy movies of the 80s. The Deathstalker series, Warrior and the Sorceress, Sword and the Sorcerer, bodybuilding I dig them quite a bit. Are they good? Hell no!
Ice Pirates? Had a serious crush on Mary Crosby back in the day...
It's a nice Movie ever seen.
As a kid I just loved Ice Pirates but after growing up, I realized how stupid I was that film is on a different level of goofiness or rather I should say, it is like a low-budget spoof of star wars
spudeus wrote:Is there hate for Dragonslayer on this thread?! Decent acting, good story, and in my mind hands-down the best dragon ever envisioned for the screen.
I might go with that old standby Krull - totally flat performances, misfired effects, slow pace, just a hard slog.
Honorable mention, though, to Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. In terms of budget and expectations vs. results. . . well I'm sure we all remember how much we enjoyed the elf/dwarf forbidden romance subplot.
Yes, you are right. The Hobbit trilogy was fantastic. its box office was superb. I still remember about this movie and I always watch it when it comes on television. My favorite is the first and third parts.
I have to disagree. The trilogy could have easily been 2 movies, but instead was filled with fluff that strayed so far from the book as to be unrecognizable.
The LOTR films had a sense of care and passion behind them - the Hobbit trilogy by comparison felt like a bloated cash-out. If LOTR had never existed, maybe the Hobbit would've gotten a better reception? Same could be said for the Star Wars prequels. . .
The Hobbit was originally planned to be 2 movies, written as 2 movies and shot as 2 movies, but the studio decided to make it a trilogy after the first movie was release, and Jackson had to scramble to add enough stuff to make a third movie, including rebuilding many sets and bringing the actors back to NZ a year after they finished shooting. I don't think he was particularly happy with the end result, but I wouldn't count it as the worst ever, even remotely. Admittedly I am fan enough to have watched all the special features on all the movies on all the extended editions of the whole Tolkien/Jackson catalog.
While that's true, Peter Jackson admitted that they shot entirely too much footage for two movies and however they came across the idea of stretching it into three movies, he completely signed off on. PJ had so much clout that he could have easily told the studio that he wanted to keep it to two movies. If he would have asked to make 4 movies, New Line Cinema would surely done that without hesitation as well.
~O
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@ VAE VICTUS! >> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<
spudeus wrote:The LOTR films had a sense of care and passion behind them - the Hobbit trilogy by comparison felt like a bloated cash-out. If LOTR had never existed, maybe the Hobbit would've gotten a better reception? Same could be said for the Star Wars prequels. . .