Most mediocre film ever made

The recent "Moulin Rouge" with Nicole Kidman. I had seen the original, loved it, and erroneously thought that this was a remake. What a piece of crap. I turned it off after about 20 minutes.

Anybody wanna buy a barely used DVD, cheap! :wink:

I've seen the Moulin Rouge as well, but didn't go in, because I think, it's a tourist trap ... for Americans, especially.


Oh, I just notice, you meant the film Phoenix.
I agree with that.

I'll add another Oscar winner to the list that I thought was just boring, despite some good points: The English Patient. I didn't hate it, but I really didn't understand why it was Oscar material. Another big yawn for me. Maybe it's because I read the book before seeing the film. I could have been biased.

cav- "The English Patient" was a wimmins movie. We would not expect you to understand!

not this wimmin

Shrek 2 and Hero.

The trailors for Hero didn't come anywhere close to the actual topic.

The Conversation---Gene Hackman was for me the most boring film ever.

Anything at all directed by Antonioni.

wow..i've watched shrek2 4 times already and think it's a great film...Sense and Sensibility didn't work for me...nor Out of Africa...

These are all interesting comments, but I am curious as to how something can be the "most" mediocre (average, so-so).

That's an interesting question -- reminds me of someone who described himself as "profoundly ambiguous."

I suppose any film that is highly praised at first, but which, in retrospect, seems to be just average, might merit the label of "most mediocre." I've already expressed my feelings about "The English Patient" in the "Most Boring Movies Ever" thread, so I won't add it here. I think "Chariots of Fire" would qualify: another Academy Award winner for Best Picture, in retrospect it is just a standard "athlete overcomes odds, becomes a champion" kind of film. The only things that really distinguished it from any other picture of that genre were the Vangelis score (and how soon did that get annoying?) and the cinematography. Otherwise, it's just "Rocky" with British accents.

While this comment I'm about to make is really in the wrong forum, is there not a certain Zen in striving to 'be' the 'most' mediocre?

About Schmidt falls into that 'expecting more' category for me. Just echoing boomerang, I loved Dickie Roberts, Child Star, for pretty much the same reasons. Guilty pleasure, and David Spade, who seems to be able to carry off even the most ill-conceived scripts.

I'm not so sure "most mediocre" is correct English (I think I'd get blue penciled for that one by any editor or teacher) and this is gleaning the usual "I hate that movie" response which I don't believe is what was intended (and is now reduntive as we've had more than our share of worst movie threads in the past year). There are, of course, more movies of average quality than any other kind. Another way of putting it is a two star movie in a four star ratings system. I think what you might have been going for is guilty pleasures, one of mine being "Summer Lovers."

'Most mediocre' is indeed incorrect English, by the blue letter of the law, but it's conceptual, so I take artistic licence. I agree, I didn't want this thread to degenerate into another "hated it" thread. To clarify, this thread should really be about two things: the critically acclaimed movies that really didn't suck, but left you uninterested, and the 'guilty pleasures', the unrecognized but entertaining.

So...in the interests of getting the thread on topic, I nominate 'Smooth Talk', with Treat Williams and Laura Dern. Not great, not horrible, but intriguing.

It would be like writing "most average," but the correct definition of mediocre is of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance. It's all subjective opinion after all.

I find it difficult to even remember these movies but I was astounded when Ebert and Roeper gave thumbs up to the two sequels of "The Matrix" with their mumbo-jumbo methaphysics and incongrous malange of characters even though I enjoyed watching them strictly for the action special effects. I appreciated the science but not particularly the artistic value. So they're not awful, just dissapointing. Same with Star Wars Part One and Two. There's just too much good sci-fi out there that hasn't been adapted. I've noted two in particular time and again, "The Demolished Man" and "Mission of Gravity." Those are both thinker novels but there would be opportunity for some great special effects that could be melded seemlessly into the stories. Spielberg achieved it with "AI" but fell into the trap of maudlin sentimentality. I enjoyed the provocative view of the future but the story became too predictably chained to its source material.

Agree with you wholeheartedly re: the Matrix sequels, Wizard. But those movies aren't really (for me) 'mediocre' in the sense that Cav has defined. In my view, they're just exploitative hunks of overdone computer-assisted special effects. Fluff with absolutely no substance to them.

I agree with you about David Spade, cav. He really can crack me up. I'll watch for "Little Dickie" to show up on TV.

Since I'm confessing things on this thread, I'll admit that I used to watch that sit-com he was on once in a while. I own/operate a photo studio and I've always thought it the whole scene would make a great comedy - his sit-com was set at a fashion magazine and dealt with a lot of the same ego issues I face everyday.

I don't think anyone has mentioned "The Blair Witch Project" as an over-hyped, mediocre film yet.

<sigh>

Its been so long since I've been to see a new release that I found myself scratching my head over what were obviously "in" jokes in the new "Shreck" movie.

Someday I'll look back on my "out of the loop" period of my life and laugh..... or cry..... or freak out.

The lesser James Bond movies are still a guilty pleasure -- just like the concept so even if the story is wanting they are fun.

Hi, Boom!