What film do you call the worst of all?

LEt's not forget those Italians and Gays who are running Hollywood -- they are really anxious to be mouthpieces for this adminstration. Wha?

Also, the movie most to throw a scare into us as far as alien life was "Independence Day." I believe that was released during the Clinton adminstration.

I don't know how they do it, but they do it, I'm certain of it.

Nearly every science fiction movie of the last couple of years had a phrase in which extraterrestrial life is ridiculised or depicted as hostile. These phrases must have been inserted into the dialogues, because they clearly fall out of tone with the rest of the play. 'Solaris' had it ("who are you with, them or us?", and that was totally off - as if Solaris was hostile), 'the Matrix reloaded' had it (equalling extraterrestrials with vampires and werewolves - hello-o), 'Signs' obviously wanted to scare us for crop circles (ask yourselves why - and listen to what experts say about this).

Count the number of movies that charismatize the CIA since the last three years and tell me that's a coincidence. Look at the rise of historic, patriotic and military movies and tell me that's a coincidence. Hollywood is the ultimate global propaganda/brainwash tool. Irresistable for bending public opinion. Think about it.

Mac, I think you're mixing up quality and profit?

You're talking about science fiction themes that go back to H. G. Well's "The War of the Worlds." In the '40s during WWII, the pulp sci-fi magazines were full of bad aliens. The 50's had paralleled the covert alien invasion to the communist threat ("The Body Snatchers" was the best of the lot). This is nothing new and I doubt any government conspiracy to continue on storytelling themes that began in the early days of sci-fi. In a lot of cases, it's moral is that the people of Earth can all forget their differences and join together to battle the common cause of a threat from outside our planet. Wolf, I think you are howling up the wrong tree.

The theme of alien threats and the populace of the Earth uniting against them is as old as sci-fi itself, beginning with H. G. Well's "The War of the Worlds." During the 50's it was a parable to the communist threat as in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." I don't find many of the recent war films to be glorifying war -- I like "Tigerland" as the best of the lot as it tore open the guts of the army machine during the Vietnam war: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0170691

The John Wayne syndrome is always with us, that the U.S. can do no wrong militarily but it's pretty much supplanted by the anti-war movies, always more powerful and direct a communication about the futility of war. As far as any government conspiracy theory, they have about as much chance in influencing Hollywood as blowing up the planet Jupiter.

Sorry for double post -- while I was going to IMDB for the link to "Tigerland," it decided to post it and then I couldn't find it.

You have a point there, Tartarin. One can't assume that a movie is great because it made a lot of money. But I don't think a mediocre movie could possibly do that well. Mediocre movies die fast and don't make a profit.

Not to say that Signs was a great movie. I'd give it about a 7 out of 10.

I'm a little bit late to this thread, so please forgive me if I interupt its flow.

I must tell you, though, that 1964's Kitten with a Whip starring Ann-Margret and John Forsythe wins my nod for the worst film ever made.

I don't recall such blatant overacting in any other film, even Valley of the Dolls.

Look, it's not a matter of domination over Hollywood. We're still in the real world; it's a matter of collusion and like-mindedness. The links between Disney Studios and staunch right wing-adepts are not even conspirational, they're a historical fact. It suffices to 'convince' a couple of studio bosses to help out a little and bend their scenario's in the desired direction and you're in business.

Movies have been used as soft public meme controllers (the successfulness I keep in the middle). Psychologically, the public reasoning is consciously stimulated that if it's in a movie, it can't be true. At the same time -- subconsciously -- the existence of non-earthly life is regularly associated with danger, and this perception nests itself in the protective areas of our perception -- or at least that's the purpose. By all means should humankind be kept alienated from et's. The relentless themes of animosity and fear are more and more assiociated with these beings.
This explains why non-earthly craft over our skies have triggered mainly childish giggles: "you must have seen too many movies," was the rationale. The contrary is true: we have seen too many movies to acknowledge that we're dealing with a real phenomenon.

So the numerous invasion themes are at least guilty of something. The movies you mention, Lightwizard, don't just coincide in time with the appearance of unidentified objects in the skies. While I will grant you that the resurgence of these sci-fi type of movies is partly the result of the world's mental reckoning that we're not alone, the content of the movies has also been taken advantage of to keep public opinion on a leash... now more than ever.

Fantasy and reality don't mix. Directors like Steven Spielberg, whom I suspect is under the wrong impression that his blockbuster movies, E.T. in the first place, had an educating instead of a fantasmagorating effect, should understand he's doing more harm than good.

You have a vivid imagination, wolf, one that those who write or make sci-fi movies would have difficulty going on the such a similar weak limb. "ET" involved the evil government trying to do their dirty work -- there are more films made in many genres (including war flicks, see "Tigerland") which paint the government in a very dark mode than any that try to slip some (imagined) supliminal message which would support any contemporary administration's doctrines. Sorry, just don't see it and Walt Disney? -- name some films and where their purpose was to support a current administration's doctrines. These generalizations aren't convincing.

The only war film that seems to follow the pattern is "The Green Berets," but one really has to consider the source and it's just too obvious. It's timing was also very curious, considering the administration's responsible for the continuation of the Vietnam War.

'Signs' had just the most obvious screenplay of mental influencing. Shyalaman himself stated in an interview that crop circles scared the hell out of him, and that he wanted to warn the world about their purpose. I guess any objective film maker would approach the crop circle phenomenon in a slightly more open way than was the case. Listen to what Colin Andrews, crop circles' first investigator, has to say about this.

I'm also convinced that the public influence of the you-know-what-Agency is far more reaching than one thinks. This is supported by testimonies of ex-employees, who state that its main and full-time purpose is to steer public opinion in a certain direction. Through all available media, including movie studios.

Not worth a reply.

Don't take my word for it.

There are more conspiracy theory sites on the internet than there are people in Cucamonga. I've seen the link before--not worthy of consideration.

gentlemen, it is quite plausible that the cia had a hand in the worst movie i ever saw, "paint your wagon."

using either clint eastwood or lee marvin to sing in public would constitute by international law the use of weapons of mass excruciation.

had the director given even a few episodes of other surrealism, like a talking dog or dancing bear, i could have taken as mere parody their singing, but as it was, the dog did not speak, the bear did not dance, and their singing was meant to be real.

"paint your wagon" did not even rise to the level of the immortal "cop rock," which next to the one show gig of "tune-on" was the worst tv i ever saw this side of public access programing.

k -- the length of "Paint Your Wagon" bothered me more than their singing. The director was striving for dramatic realism, something that can bury a musical. It was done with success in "Cabaret" but then what can one say about "Cabaret." Imagine "Chicago" if it had taken itself too seriously. Satire in musicals didn't start off with much success, "Candide" being the model, but it's now well seasoned and has enjoyed many incarnations (see "Urinetown"). "Paint Your Wagon" is perhaps an average film but I don't know about including in a worst list.

The thread appears to have dived off into "pet peeve" movies,

i consider both eastwood and marvin fine actors. paint your wagon was the only movie either starred in that i will not bother to watch.

your understanding of "worst" may be not mine.

ed wood and his paper plates on "plan 9..." can be accepted for the camp it was. it is staying within the limits of creduliaty expected from the source.

paint your wagon was an expensive film, with major stars and a true script, music and libretto. it was not an underbudgeted film made in a corner by some starry eyed, benzidrine inspired wierdo.

it is the measure of failure, best described by what was versus what was expected that i dont think any movie was as bad considering what was put into it.

but i did enjoy the town collapsing.

comparing the realism of cabaret, where shockingly, singing goes on as a part of the plot's characters is not the same as lee marivin breaking into revery in the forest with the chipmuncks. "come to the cabaret" as a song in placement of story context as realism is facile, eastwood calling the wind miria is not. it is why i said that had the director made clear the surrealism of the story, all such nonsense could have been absorbed as a fairy tale. the fact that they tried to make a film chock-ful-of realism and fell so far short is exactly the failure.

watching that movie was like watching a best friend get embarressed in public. you feel so sorry for what is happening, and want to turn away.

but glizard if your opinion is based on technical craft, then any low budget film or one made by a novice is likely to be poorer than more costly ones crafted by mature people, then there is no more here a discussion of the impact movies have on the viewer, than a mechanic has when discussing engines and fuel systems rather than the actual performance of the car.

i mean, just how many technically perfect movies are there?

city lights, a hard days night?

That's true that just as everyone has their own idea of worst films, they have their own idea about best films. I know the critics gave "Paint Your Wagon" quite a trouncing for the same reasons you enumerate and it was produced in a time period when musicals were out of favor. On the big screen, it isn't a bad film but in the pan-and-scan version in the bad prints I've seen, it seems to highten the flaws. I originally saw it at the studio preview on a big screen with good sound and enjoyed it. However, it won't find its way into my DVD collection -- much prefer "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" in the Western/Musical (or Wilderness/Musical?) idiom.

If you saw "Ed Wood," that's a pretty good depiction of his career -- he was dead serious that he was making great films. I met him and a science fiction convention in Oakland one time and he was as biazarre as his film. He stayed in men's clothes during the convention.

My ultimate point is there are hundreds of truly terrible films -- I like Ebert's "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie" book. It's a laugh riot and he just about nailed every bad film.

Lightwizard, I guess you're not able to decide for all of us what's worth our consideration and what not. Please let our colleagues decide the worth of something for themselves. A bad case of hubris you got there.

I'm sure conspiracies are not included in your ontologically low-dimensional view on the political system. Any information away from the governments textbook is an unfounded conspiracy -- even when journalistically investigated, directly recognized, and supported by facts, right?

Congratulations, you have now entered The Truman Show.